Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence should be excluded on the basis of unfair prejudice or any other ground of inadmissibility set out in Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403. The Defendant instead claims that the lay testimony was improper under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701(a), which provides that non-expert witnesses may testify as to opinions only when they are “rationally based on the perception of the witness” and are either “helpful to a clear understanding of the -witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” Rule 701(a) authorizes the admission of this testimony. Mr. Payne and Mr. Car-ringer merely testified to the presence of asbestos without offering a scient 354 N.C. 572, 558 S.E.2d 867 (2001); Olinger v. Pretty Prods., Inc., No. 96-CA-29, 1997 WL 33814208, at *4 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 7,1997) ; Per-man v. C.H. Murphy/Clarlc-Ullman, Inc.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
B. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was admissible because it was rationally based upon the perception of the witness
C. holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion
D. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted
E. holding that it was error to allow a police officer who was admitted as a lay witness after a prosecution motion to admit him as an expert was denied for lack of timeliness to give testimony as to a matter about which he had no personal knowledge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.