Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the Developer stating that since the moratorium, the Developer “has been effectively forced to leave its ... property economically idle.” The affidavit appears to be based on consultation with land-use experts, but does not explain who they are, what they considered, or what then-opinions are, and the affidavit also appears to admit that agricultural use of the property is possible, but denies that it is “economically viable.” In our view, this self-serving affidavit without any explanation of the underlying factual basis for its conclusions does not serve to create a material issue of fact that “all reasonable beneficial use” of the property has been deprived by the County’s actions. See Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 42, 44-45, 508 P.2d 1339, 1341-42 (Ct.App.1973) . Accordingly, summary judgment was properly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment
B. holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment
C. holding that summits adoption of the facts set forth in mitchells brief was admissible
D. holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions
E. holding affidavits must include competent evidence and affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual person knowledge or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.