Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also Smith Barney Shearson Inc. v. Sacharow, 91 N.Y.2d 39, 666 N.Y.S.2d 990, 689 N.E.2d 884, 889-90 (1997). . In their merger agreement, Vocada and Nuanee agreed to arbitrate “any ... dispute relating to the -Earnout Consideration.” This clause is narrow. It does not require arbitration of all disputes arising out of the merger agreement; instead,- it requires arbitration only of disputes related to the earnout consideration. See State v. Philip Morris Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 574, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636, 639-40 (200.7) (observing that an arbitration clause that covers “any dispute ... relating to” an auditor’s calculations and determinations is “misleadingly called broad” (alterations and emphasis omitted»; Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp., 302 A.D.2d at 119, 126, 752 N.Y.S.2d 611 ; We’re Assocs., Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause
B. holding that an arbitration clause that covered any irreconcilable difference of opinion  as to the interpretation of this contract was a narrowclause
C. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
D. holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law
E. holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.