Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
theory of the case, any weakness or implausibility in that theory is a matter for the jury, not for the court. See Folger v. State, 648 P.2d at 113. Admittedly, there are some exceptions to this doctrine where the defense of necessity is concerned. There are several Alaska eases which conclude that trial judges did not abuse their discretion in refusing to give necessity defenses. However, we believe that a close reading of those cases establishes that the defendants in those cases had clear legal alternatives to violating the law. See Nelson v. State, 597 P.2d 977, 980 (Alaska 1979) (finding that defendant had several lawful alternatives and that “[t]he seriousness of the offenses committed by Nelson were disproportionate to the situation he faced.”); Schnabel, 663 P.2d at 966 ; Cleveland, 631 P.2d at 1081 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted
B. holding that there was adequate opportunity when state court judicial review of an administrative proceeding was available
C. holding that defendant had adequate alternatives in judicial and administrative remedies to the course he took
D. holding that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is appropriate where doing so can protect administrative agency authority and promote judicial efficiency
E. holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.