Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
assistance, by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel's actions." Clark, 2004 UT 25 at T6, 89 P.3d 162 (alteration, citation, and quotations omitted). Marble's bare assertion that "[tlhere is no conceivable trial strategy to elicit and then allow that type of testimony especially when the case hinged on the vie-tim's credibility," does not rebut this presumption. {12 Utah courts have recognized that when viewing "the variety of cireumstances faced by defense counsel," a conscious choice not to object to arguably inadmissible testimony may, at times, fall within "the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant," Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. See, eg., State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 7, 89 P.3d 162 ; State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ ¶ 40-44, 48
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to object to damaging testimony as it would merely serve to highlight the testimony
B. holding that even if the alleged failure to present mitigating evidence was an oversight and not a tactical choice by counsel it was harmless
C. holding that counsel may well have made a reasonable tactical choice to not object to arguably inadmissible testimony
D. holding that pretrial motions in limine were not feasible because counsel could not have anticipated inadmissible testimony
E. recognizing the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions and that strategic choices made after less than complete investigation may be reasonable if reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.