Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is a tool the jury may utilize to gauge the defendant’s intent and is helpful in situations in which the defendant’s intent to deceive may be unclear. For example, if the defendant asserts that he was merely joking, that the statements were mere puffery, or that the statements were merely sharp business dealing, evidence that the statements would have deceived a person of ordinary prudence and comprehension is evidence that defendant actually intended to deceive. United States v. Coffman, 94 F.3d 330, 333-34 (7th Cir.1996) (Posner, J.) (rejecting “unreasonable victim argument”; the ordinary prudence standard helps the jury determine if defendant had fraudulent intent and helps distinguish between sharp dealing and fraud). Thus, the ordinary pruden r, 609 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir.1980) ; Linden v. United States, 254 F.2d 560, 567-68
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct
B. holding that criminal conduct of third party is not superseding cause that relieves negligent actor from liability when criminal conduct is foreseeable result of actors negligence
C. holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
D. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort
E. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.