With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mathews has named a number of white employees whom he believes were similarly situated and were not terminated. From an examination of the affidavits in the record, it appears that employees named Schmidt, Hoile, Warner, Blanford and “Moonehicken” possibly had attendance problems. See generally Flint, Figueroa, Gamble, Hines and Wedge Affs. However, these affidavits, besides being primarily hearsay and speculation, contain only general statements regarding these individuals’ behavior that do not meet Mathews’ burden of establishing that these Caucasian employees also repeatedly violated Giant policies, that Giant policies required the employees’ termination and that the employees were not terminated. See Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Mathews has failed to establish

A: holding that unsworn statements signed under penalty of peijury can be used to oppose a motion for summary judgment
B: holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment
C: holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible
D: holding that statements in affidavits based solely on hearsay are inadmissible as summary judgment evidence
B.