Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or not”, when used in a superior heading, is considered to modify the article descriptions in the provisions under that heading even though the phrase was not repeated in the provisions thereunder. See General Electric Co. v. United States, 83 Cust.Ct. 56, 61, C.D. 4822, 476 F.Supp. 1082 (1979). In General Electric Co, decided by this Court under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), the Court reasoned that “the invasive character of the ‘whether or not’ language in the superior heading would make recitation of such language in each of the indented subheadings redundant.” General Electric Co. v. United States, 83 Cust.Ct. 56, 61, C.D. 4822, 476 F.Supp. 1082 (1979). See also Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. United States, 74 Cust.Ct. 125, 130, C.D. 4596, 1975 WL 26986 (1975) . Further, Plaintiffs proposed subheading
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that whether or not phrase in the superior heading qualifies all of the provisions subordinate to the superior heading
B. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa
C. holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc  11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase
D. recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market
E. holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.