Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be a little over 17 grams. He continued his argument by drawing the same distinction between simple manufacturing and trafficking. He stated, I think the evidence that has been presented is, at this point ... not sufficient for at least trafficking ... [b]ut it’s certainly the—it’s too speculative to present the trafficking. So, if we don’t have—if we have enough to present to the jury, I submit we have—it would be for manufacturing as opposed to trafficking. In denying the motion, the trial court specifically referred back to the previous discussion about “theoretical yield,” indicating the trial court understood the directed verdict motion to address the sufficiency of the State’s evidence on the element of quantity. See State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 353, 737 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2013) ; State v. Hendricks, 408 S.C. 525, 531, 759
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed
B. holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection
C. holding the issue was preserved when the trial court immediately appeared to understand the objection was a renewal of a previous argument
D. holding an issue was preserved in part because the trial court immediately understood the basis of the objection
E. holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.