Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
he believed Reuland lied to him. Hynes’s counsel attempted to broaden this to simply “he had lied period,” but the court responded: “That is not what the evidence is____The whole issue whether he lied to him. This really isn’t ... a Pickering question, it’s a causation question. It is a way of focusing more precisely on your version of what caused the demotion.” Rather than persist in her Pickering argument, Hynes’s counsel replied, “I think that is right. I think what Your Honor has proposed will work.” Generally, we need not consider a claim on appeal where the party advancing it consented not to submit it to the jury below. See Coffey v. Dobbs Int’l Servs., Inc., 170 F.3d 323, 325 n. 2 (2d Cir.1999); Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Bartco Petroleum Corp., 858 F.2d 103, 106-07 (2d Cir.1988) . By failing to make clear to the district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source
B. holding that theories of liability or defense pleaded and proved but not submitted are abandoned
C. holding that a theory of recovery pleaded but not submitted to the jury by explicit agreement need not be considered on appeal
D. holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory
E. holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.