Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a gate-keeping function, the court’s focus is on the expert’s methodology, while the “soundness of the factual underpinnings of the expert’s analysis and the correctness of the expert’s conclusions based on that analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact.” Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir.2000) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786). In this case Dickson has formed an opinion — based on his experience with roofs in general and his inspection of the particular roof in question — as to what caused the damage to the roof. (Dickson’s Dep. at 74-91.) It is not this court’s job to determine whether his opinion is correct — it is the plaintiffs job to attack the validity of his opinion on cross-examination. See Smith, 215 F.3d at 718 . Thus, Dickson will be allowed to testify
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct
B. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
C. holding that if an experts opinion is dependent upon information that is inaccurate or lacks support in the record it is deemed incompetent
D. holding that it is not
E. holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.