Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as fact for more than 200 years.” (Id. at 7). It is clear that the claims of excessive noise levels and the analysis of the OSHA regulations dealing with time weighted averages “present technical issues beyond the common experience and understanding of the average jury.” In re Amtrak “Sunset Ltd.” Train Crash, 188 F.Supp.2d at 1347. Although fellow employees with extensive experience in the Patchogue Yard may be able to offer testimony on their subjective impressions of the noise level of the DE and DM warning devices, they lack the technical expertise necessary to analyze whether the decibel levels of the horns were in fact higher than those of the older trains’ horns or whether these horns caused plaintiffs loss of hearing. See Thirkill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. 950 F.Supp. at 1107 . While plaintiffs expert, Dr. Danziger, opines
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion
B. holding beneficiaries under a will are qualified to testify to execution
C. holding that an expert could testify that unguarded elevator buttons constituted a design defect despite the experts lack of a specific background in design and manufacture of elevators
D. holding that njeither the plaintiff nor fellow crewmen are qualified to testify as design experts
E. holding that generally qualified experts do not require a subspecialty in order to testify to things within their expertise
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.