Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the constitutional right “at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” ... Ramirez, 379 F.3d at 126 (internal citations omitted) (alteration in the original). While the Tuner factors “serve as guides to a single reasonableness standard,” the first factor “ ‘looms especially large’ because it ‘tends to encompass the remaining factors, and some of its criteria are apparently necessary conditions.’ ” Id. (quoting Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208, 213-14 (3d Cir.1999)). If the connection between a prison policy and the government’s asserted interests is too tenuous, the policy is “arbitrary or irrational” and “fails irrespective of whether the other factors tilt in its favor.” Wolf, 297 F.3d at 309-10. Accord Ashker v. Califonia Dept. of Corrections, 350 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2003) . The Supreme Court has made clear that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments
B. holding that if a policy fails the first tuner prong the court need not address the other factors
C. holding appellate court need not address issues unnecessary to its decision
D. holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
E. holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.