With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has also presented evidence that creates a reasonable inference that age discrimination was the determinative factor in her termination. The district court found that the firing of older employees during the reorganization period of September 1994 to October 1995 was not sufficient to create an inference of impermissible age discrimination. While we agree that timing alone does not create a presumption of age discrimination, see Nelson v. J.C. Penney Co., 75 F.3d 343, 346-47 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 813, 117 S.Ct. 61, 136 L.Ed.2d 23 (1996), it may lend force to contemporaneous evidence of age discrimination, depending on the quality of that evidence, see Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 501 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 940, 112 S.Ct. 376, 116 L.Ed.2d 327 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Caudill v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 919 F.2d

A: holding in a race discrimination case that close timing is an element of the plaintiffs prima facie case but insufficient on its own to rebut a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that explains the action and its timing
B: holding that infer ence cannot be based on timing alone but must take into account other evidence
C: holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant
D: holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted
B.