Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reduces the likelihood of confusion.” Sally Beauty Co., 304 F.3d at 975. Buyers typically exercise little care in selecting inexpensive items and making impulse purchases. Id. Conversely, expensive items are typically chosen more carefully. Id. “The relevant inquiry focuses on the consumer’s degree of care exercised at the time of purchase.” Id. The court envisions that a rational trier of fact might weigh this factor in favor of finding that consumers are likely to exercise a high degree of care under all of the circumstances here. See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Just Did It Enters., 6 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (7th Cir.1993) (trademark infringement case involving apparel in which the court rejected the argument that the degree of care depends solely upon price); Jordache Enters., 828 F.2d at 1487 .' But, at this procedural juncture the court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding trial courts finding omission of information was not intentional or with reckless disregard for truth was not clearly erroneous
B. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
C. holding the district courts finding following a bench trial that customers are likely to exercise a high degree of care in purchasing clothing that costs between fifteen and sixty dollars was not clearly erroneous
D. holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous
E. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.