Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ranged from 6 to 9.2 ounces.” WP Art. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 . Bassolino faces an additional hurdle in reaching even this contingency, as he claims to have purchased a product — chicken fingers. — -that is identified in neither the Press Release (which refers only to chicken tenders), DCA Rpt. at 2, nor the Moll Affidavit (which refers to chicken legs, chicken thighs, rotisserie chicken halves, split chicken breasts, and wing buckets), Moll Aff., Ex. A, as a product tested by the DCA. Plaintiffs' counsel conceded at argument that chicken fingers and tenders are "different form[s] of producéis]” that are "marketed differently.” Tr. 19-20; cf. White City Shopping Ctr., LP v. PR Restaurants LLC, 21 Mass.L.Rptr. 565, 2006 WL 3292641 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 31, 2006) . Plaintiffs’ argument that it can be inferred
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived
B. holding that tacos burritos and quesadillas are not sandwiches
C. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined
D. holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived
E. holding that ijssues that are raised only in the argument part of the brief and are not contained in the point relied on are not preserved for review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.