Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
DNA expert goes to weight of evidence, not its admissibility; even if error rate of expert’s proficiency tests presented challenge to reliability of polymerase chain reaction analysis, that argument would not result in exclusion of PCR evidence, as error rate would only be one factor considered in determining admissibility); Keen v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 795, 485 S.E.2d 659 (1997)(concluding that even if the proficiency test results of expert had been admitted and could have been used by Keen to establish state laboratory had previously made erroneous findings, this information would not have affected admissibility of the DNA evidence, but rather, would have only affected the weight the fact finder accorded the DNA evidence); State v. Copeland, 130 Wash.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304 (1996); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 846 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that laboratory error is a matter of weight and not admissibility under frye v united states 293 f 1013 dccir1923 under rule of evidence 702 if lab error or error rates are so serious that results are not helpful to the jury the trial court may in its discretion rule the evidence inadmissible
B. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
C. holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard
D. holding that even if a trial court errs in a ruling on the admissibility of evidence we will reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice and that the error was harmless
E. holding under former rule 52a appellant must object to alleged error in the trial court or such error is waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.