Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claim or might motivate the court of appeals to raise such a claim on its own. In summary, under the circumstances, the court of appeals ought to have addressed the preservation issue urged in the State’s motion for rehearing. This case involves a serious question about whether error was in fact preserved under common, everyday notions of procedural default. This Court should either remand the case to the court of appeals to consider the issue or it should consider the preservation issue on discretionary review. I respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision to dismiss this petition as improvidently granted. 1 . 791 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 2 . Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1, 2 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); see also Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)  and Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 199 n. 4
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion for rehearing regarding a preservation of error issue was an appropriate vehicle to force appellate courts to observe their systemic requirements
B. holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing
C. recognizing fundamental error as an exception to the general rule of preservation
D. holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error
E. holding that since prosecutorial comments did not constitute fundamental error absence of preservation of issue by defense counsel precluded appellate review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.