Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
221-22, 52 N.W.2d 458, 465 (1952). In Mack, 292 N.W.2d at 768-69, 772, we added an additional consideration to the Frye analysis in deciding that testimony developed through the aid of hypnosis was inadmissible. Although citing the Frye general acceptance standard, our primary concern in Mack was with the unreliability of memories produced while under hypnosis. See Mack, 292 N.W.2d at 768-69. As a result, the test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Minnesota developed into the two-prong Frye-Mack standard. First, a novel scientific technique must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, and second, the particular evidence derived from that test must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable. See State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn.1985) ; see also State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community
B. holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
C. holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
D. holding that graphology is accorded a low measure of scientific reliability in predicting character or state of mind and is not generally accepted in the scientific fields of psychology and psychiatry
E. holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.