With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". one caveat, however, which turns out to be important in this case. The claimant cannot invoke the presumption by producing an X-ray that simply constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis. Mullins Coal, 484 U.S. at 147, 108 S.Ct. at 433-34; Cook v. Director, OWCP, 816 F.2d 1182, 1185 (7th Cir.1987). The chest X-ray produced by the claimant must show the presence of pneumoconiosis by a preponderance of the evidence. Mullins Coal, 484 U.S. at 147-52, 108 S.Ct. at 433-36. The effect of the presumption is to shift both the burden of production and of persuasion to the employer. Amax Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 772 F.2d 304, 305 (7th Cir.1985); Peabody Coal Co. v. Hale, 771 F.2d 246, 248 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985). But see Underhill v. Peabody Coal Co., 687 F.2d 217, 222 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The presumption may be rebutted by showing

A: holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact
B: holding without extended discussion that the presumption shifts only the burden of production
C: holding employer satisfied its burden of production
D: holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only
B.