Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
trading costs for the Fund, “as the vast majority of the fixed income spreads ended up benefitting a third-party broker — East West — that provided nothing of value to the pension fund,” as Mayer put it, concluding from comparison with the actual performance of the portfolios Great Northern managed and with bond indices in the relevant period that the Fund would have earned about $300,000 on the commission dollars diverted to East West, not counting investigation costs. Berkowitz concluded that Great Northern obtained disadvantageous prices due to the criminal conspiracy involving Roach, Tringale, and Close. Great Northern challenges the admissibility of the Fund’s experts’ testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) . Evidence that is inadmissible because it is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
B. holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible
C. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible
D. holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible
E. holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.