Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. 1267 (setting forth the second prong of the “discretionary function exception” test, which requires the court to determine that “the judgment or choice in question [is] grounded in considerations of public policy or susceptible to policy analysis” for the exception' to apply); Hardscrabble Ranch, L.L.C. v. United States, 840 F.3d 1216, 1223 (10th Cir. 2016)(ex-plaining that “the discretionary action must be based on the purposes of the applicable regulatory regime”)). According to C. Warren, where there is a risk of serious danger there cannot be a policy consideration that justifies the United States’ “inattentiveness or failure to intervene.” Motion to Amend Reply at 13 (citing Andrulonis v. United States, 952 F.2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1991)). Thus, C. Warren concludes the Motion to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the discretionary function exception was inapplicable to a center for disease control scientists failure to maintain safety procedures and to warn laboratory workers about a dangerous rabies sample to which he had exposed them
B. holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment
C. holding issuance of ldp to be a discretionary function and therefore recognizing no specific mandate by regulation or otherwise which renders the exception inapplicable
D. recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver
E. holding that decision to operate lighthouse is discretionary decision while failure to maintain lighthouse is not within discretionary function exception
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.