Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the mere ipse dixit of a credentialed witness.’ ” Id. at 232 (emphasis added) (quoting Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tex.1999)). If an expert “brfings] to court little more than his credentials and a subjective opinion,” his testimony will not support a judgment. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 712 (Tex.1997) (substitution in original). We later observed that an expert’s testimony is conclusory as a matter of law if he “simply state[s] a conclusion without any explanation.” Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Assocs. 1990-A, Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380, 389 (Tex.2008). And testimony is speculative if it is based on guesswork or conjecture. Although Coastal involved expert testimony, its holding is not necessarily limited to experts. See Coastal, 136 S.W.3d at 233 . We held that “[o]pinion testimony that is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bare conclusions  even if unobjected to  cannot constitute probative evidence
B. holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family courts findings and conclusions
C. recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence
D. holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged
E. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.