Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
MDCR found "probable cause” that Bassett was (1) subjected to disparate scrutiny based on her race, and (2) retaliated against because she had attempted to pursue “legitimate channels” to stop the alleged discriminatory behavior in her employment. While not determinative on the question of discrimination, the finding of probable cause demonstrates that upon distillation of all the evidence presented, reasonable minds could disagree over the material fact of retaliation and intentional discrimination. See Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 863 n. 39, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976) (prior administrative findings made in employment discrimination claim admissible at trial under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(c)), cf. Johnson v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 734 F.2d 1304, 1309 (8th Cir.1984) . 13 . Bassett’s charge, cross-filed with the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony
B. holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility
C. recognizing admissibility of eeoc reasonable cause determination but declining to adopt per se rule of admissibility
D. holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given
E. holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.