Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
could ever be established by the testimony of a party, which concept the law long abandoned. See Schoenvogel ex rel. Schoenvogel v. Venator Group Retail, Inc., 895 So.2d 225, 238 (Ala.2004) (citing Herbert E. Tucker, Colorado Dead Man’s Statute: Time for Repeal or Reform?, 29 Colo. Law. 45, 45 (January 2000) (tracing the movement away from the common-law rule that rendered parties incompetent to testify in their own cases)). When the record contains no legitimate reason for questioning the credibility of a party’s statements, a decision to disregard those statements based solely on the fact that they assist the party in proving his or her case is necessarily arbitrary and contrary to the law. See generally Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501 (1891) . The record lacks any basis on which the trial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that industrial commission is ultimate fact finder
B. holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case
C. holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable
D. holding that a finder of fact may not arbitrarily disregard uncontradicted evidence
E. holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.