With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Scott, 172 F.3d at 966-67. 1. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) NEL contends that 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) should have precluded discharge. This section provides that a discharge does not apply to a debtor who, among others, “knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case ... made a false oath or account.” In order for this section to preclude discharge, NEL must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the debtor made a statement under oath; (2) the statement was false; (3) the debtor knew the statement was false; (4) the debtor made the statement with fraudulent intent; and (5) the statement related materially to the bankruptcy case. See, e.g., Lee Supply Corp. v. Agnew (In re Agnew), 818 F.2d 1284, 1289-90 (7th Cir.1987); see also Scott, 172 F.3d at 966-67 (<HOLDING>). A creditor can establish , fraudulent intent

A: holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to  523 claims
B: holding that the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 usc  523a is the preponderance of the evidence standard
C: holding preponderance standard applies to 11 usc  727a objections
D: holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
C.