Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
workingdogs.com/doc0130.htm. These are not my words, but the words of the Arson Section Manager of the Oregon State Police. Even the guideline “published by the National Fire Protection Association suggests that evidence of a canine alert that is not confirmed by laboratory testing should not be considered valid.” Commonwealth v. Crouse, 447 Mass. 558, 855 N.E.2d 391, 402 (2006). “While the reliability of tracking dogs has been widely recognized and generally accepted by the courts, with thirty-two states approving of admissions of trailing by [dogs], courts have been much less receptive to accelerant-detection [canine alerts] not confirmed by laboratory analysis.” State v. Sharp, 395 N.J.Super. 175, 928 A.2d 165, 169 (Law.Div.2006). In fact, “[t]here is substantial scientific 7) ; Sharp, 928 A.2d at 171; State v. Webber, 716
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction
B. holding that an uncorroborated callers tip did not create reasonable suspicion
C. holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction
D. holding that uncorroborated accomplice testimony may provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction
E. holding that reliability of uncorroborated canine alerts is questionable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.