With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Board reasonably thought otherwise. 11 . See Power, 40 F.3d at 418. 12 . See Power, 40 F.3d at 418 ("[T]he Board was entitled to rely on [a company official's] anti-union statements as evidence of anti-union motivation, even though [his] statements, made in private conversations to [the office manager], were not themselves unlawful.”); John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc., 337 N.L.R.B. 1223, 1224 n. 8 (2002) ("Under extant Board law ... noncoercive statements may, in limited circumstances, be used as evidence of an unfair labor practice.”), enforced, 73 Fed.Appx. 617 (4th Cir.2003) (unpublished); Tualatin Elec., Inc., 319 N.L.R.B. 1237, 1239, 1241 (1995) (owner evinced "deep hostility” toward union, calling it "organized crime”); see also United Food & Commercial Workers, 447 F.3d at 825 (<HOLDING>). But see Brown & Root, Inc. v. NLRB, 333 F.3d

A: holding two days is sufficient to prove causation
B: holding deadline 120 days before election was not unreasonable or unduly burdensome
C: holding that stating im just tired of this union shit and im ready to get my company back where it belongs two days before firing a union election observer exhibits powerful antiunion animus
D: holding that landlord was not liable where dog injured child nine days after landlordtenant relationship was established and where the lease called for 30 days notice before it could be terminated
C.