Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Court of Claims.”); Donovan v. Dillingham, 668 F.2d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir.1982) (finding the position of the United States to have been substantially justified because, both at the time it initially brought suit and at the time it appealed the adverse ruling by the district court, the governing law (for different reasons) was unsettled), rev’d on other grounds, 688 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir.1982) (en banc); Underwood v. Pierce, 547 F.Supp. 256, 261-62 (C.D.Cal.1982) (finding the position of HUD not to have been substantially justified, largely on the ground that at the time the position was taken, nine courts had rejected the argument, although the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in two related cases). But cf. Wyandotte Sav. Bank v. NLRB, 682 F.2d 119, 120 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam) . 75 . There is clear support in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing limitations existence in other circuits
B. holding that the same conclusion is compelled by this circuits reasoning in an analogous case
C. holding that the nlrb was substantially justified in seeking the overruling of a controlling tenyearold sixth circuit precedent which had been rejected by two other circuits reasoning that the position taken by the board was a reasonable attempt to reopen a closed question
D. holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact
E. holding that congress did not want the substantially justified standard to be read to raise a presumption that the government position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.