Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(3) requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” In applying these standards, the Court focuses on “the substantive elements of plaintiffs’ cause of action and inquire into the proof necessary for the various elements.” Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 672 (7th Cir.1981). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “the predominance criterion is far more demanding” than “Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 62 F.R.D. 668, 674 (D.Wyo. 2011) ; Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, 962 F.Supp. 1162,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions
B. holding that class action was superior to individual suits where class members had relatively small interests and might not have the wherewithal to bring suit to protect their individual rights
C. holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud
D. holding that because the tcpa claims will require extensive individual fact inquiries into whether each individual gave express consent by providing their wireless number to the creditor during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed  individual inquiries   predominate over the class action
E. holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.