Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay). Therefore, the district court was under no obligation to independently evaluate the articles and studies upon which Mr. Firstenberg’s experts relied in reaching their conclusions. See Wilde v. Westland Dev. Co., 2010-NMCA-085, ¶ 28, 148 N.M. 627, 241 P.3d 628 (stating that the district court may not consider inadmissible hearsay in deciding a summary judgment motion). {29} Rather, to the extent that Mr. Firstenberg wished to rely upon the contents of the articles and studies to demonstrate general causation, it was incumbent upon him to establish, via his experts, that the articles constituted reliable scientific authority. See Baerwald v. Flores, 1997-NMCA-002, ¶ 18, 122 N.M. 679, 930 P.2d 816 ; see also Andrews, 2011-NMCA-032, ¶ 9
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court may rely on the testimony of an expert even if the expert did not interview the mother daughter or nonocs service providers
B. holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard
C. recognizing that an expert may rely on an article because it is the expert who determines based on study and experience whether the article is reliable
D. holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible
E. holding that the court may consider an article not attached to the complaint in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because the article was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs did not challenge its authenticity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.