With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Rule 16(b)(4) pertaining to modifications of scheduling orders); Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Gen. & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542, 553 (7th Cir.2005) (same). Affirmed. 1 . In Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 539-40 (7th Cir.2006), we retracted language in previous opinions, beginning with Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 366 (7th Cir.1993), suggesting that the proponent of jurisdiction must "prove” to a "reasonable probability” that jurisdiction exists. 2 . Even though settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, they are admissible to show that the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes has been met. See Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813, 816 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 3 . While the parties did not include a copy

A: recognizing that powerex abrogated rogers but ultimately denied remand since the plaintiffs failed to rebut defendants claim that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded 75000 and also refused to stipulate to a lesser amount of damages
B: holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole
C: holding that the willingness to accept 60000 in a settlement supports a conclusion that the controversy exceeds 75000
D: holding that adjuster impliedly advised his clients to accept a certain sum in settlement of their claim when he approved a settlement
C.