Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
totality-of-the-circumstances review was infected by its misapprehension of the standard “dictated by the U. S. Supreme Court under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine.” App. 1229a. Whereas the focus of §§ 205(a) and 206(a) is on the reasonableness of the rates charged, not the conduct of the contracting parties, FERC restricted its review to the contracting parties’ behavior around the time of formation. See id., at 1280a-1284a. FERC seems to have thought it was powerless to conduct just-and-reasonable review unless the contract was already subject to abrogation based on contract defenses such as fraud or duress. By including contracts within the scope of § 206(a), however, Congress must have concluded that contract defenses are insufficient to protect the public interest. But see ante, at 547 . Indeed, nothing in the FPA or this Court’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing presumption
B. holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it
C. holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified
D. holding that the mobilesierra presumption applies in all circumstances absent traditional grounds for    abrogation or illegal action by a contracting party
E. holding that fourteenth amendment is the only recognized source of authority for abrogation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.