Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has not run as to the minor’s claim, a fortiori, it has not run against his present guardian.” Id. The import of both of these cases is that the cause of action remains personal to the plaintiff insofar as the running of the statute of limitations is concerned. That is, the statute of limitations either runs or is tolled depending upon the status of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether a legal guardian exists. If the plaintiff is under some form of legally recognized disability which tolls the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations remains tolled despite the possibility that some representative could bring the action on the plaintiff’s behalf. The majority of other state courts construing similar statutes have also concluded that the a 136, 927 P.2d 796, 801 (Ct.App.1996) ; Mason v. Sorrell, 260 Ark. 27, 551 S.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running
B. holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution
C. holding that tolling accorded to persons of unsound mind continued during disability regardless that next friend might have sued
D. holding that the express provisions of article 4590i exclude the unsound mind tolling provision of texcivprac  remcode ann  16001a2 and b
E. holding that the appointment of a conservator will not cease the tolling of the statute of limitations for those of unsound mind
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.