Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on Davies’ credibility and the weight to be given his trial testimony by the trial court. As this court very recently noted: [I]n order to controvert the Director’s case for revocation for a refusal, pursuant to § 577.041, requiring us to defer to the trial court with respect to its conclusions and its resolution of factual issues, including credibility determinations, the driver need only present evidence that is inconsistent with a reasonable belief of the arresting officer that the driver was DWI. There does not have to be evi dence controverting each and every indi-cia of intoxication on which the Director has introduced evidence in support of a finding of probable cause. Flaiz, 182 S.W.3d at 251. See also Howdeshell v. Dir. of Revenue, 184 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) . The Director argues that the situation here
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding due process required an opportunity for crossexamination when the decision depended on the credibility of individual witness testimony
B. holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination
C. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony
D. holding that a legitimate factual dispute or credibility determination is presented by the crossexamination of a witness for the director which raises a legitimate credibility dilemma with respect to a material aspect of the directors case
E. holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.