Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
executed U-4 registration agreement. ISSUES I. Does Ottman’s defamation claim fall within the scope of the U-4 registration agreement? II. Does compelling arbitration violate Ottman’s right to a jury trial? III. Is Ottman pursuing a baseless claim? ANALYSIS Whether a party has agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute is a matter of contract interpretation, which we review de novo. See Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 530 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Minn.1995) (agreement to arbitrate matter of contract interpretation); Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn.1979) (contract interpretation subject to de novo review). We resolve any doubts in favor of arbitration. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ; see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-15 (1988) (codifying
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding any doubts concerning scope of arbitrable issues resolved in favor of arbitration
B. holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage
C. holding that we resolve doubts about the usefulness of expert testimony in favor of admissibility
D. holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable
E. holding that statutes and ordinances are presumed to be constitutional and all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of constitutionality
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.