Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Id. at 115, 113 S.Ct. 566. We make these determinations in light of the statutory purpose of ADA as a remedial statute, which should be broadly construed to effectuate its purpose of eliminating discrimination against the disabled in our society. Kinney v. Yerusalim, 812 F.Supp. 547, 551 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1033, 114 S.Ct. 1545, 128 L.Ed.2d 196 (1994). The Third Circuit has not had occasion to identify the standard for determining who is a prevailing party under the ADA. It is clear, however, that the test is to be derived from jurisprudence under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Disabled In Action of Pa. v. Pierce, 789 F.2d 1016, 1018-19 (3d Cir.1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)) . The legislative history of the ADA reflects
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable
B. holding rehabilitation act applicable
C. holding that plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 usc section 1988 despite dismissal of the appeal as moot and vacation of the district court judgment
D. holding that standards used in section 1988 cases are applicable to determine prevailing party under section 505b of the rehabilitation act of 1973
E. holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.