Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that could support a judgment. See, e.g., City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex.2009) ("Bare, baseless opinions will not support a judgment even if there is no objection to their admission in evidence.”); Coastal Transp. Co., Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 233 (Tex.2004) (observing that "conclusory or speculative” opinions are “ ‘incompetent evidence’ ... [that] cannot support a judgment”); Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Gossett, 156 Tex. 252, 294 S.W.2d 377, 380 (1956) ("It is well settled that the naked and unsupported opinion or conclusion of a witness does not constitute evidence of probative force and will not support a jury finding even when admitted without objection.”); Casualty Underwriters v. Rhone, 134 Tex. 50, 132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (1939) . We agree with Gardner that testimony is not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bare conclusions of lay fact witnesses did not amount to any evidence at all and that the fact that they were admitted without objection added nothing to their probative force
B. holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted
C. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
D. holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection
E. holding any error in admission of evidence cured when same evidence later admitted without objection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.