Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of alimony, maintenance, or support.” The argument is unpersuasive as an initial matter because nothing in the language of section 523(a)(5) indicates that the dis-chargeability of an obligation turns on state laws regulating alimony and support. Had Congress intended. state law to be determinative, it likely would have stated that intent expressly. See Harrell, 754 F.2d at 904 (“If Congress had intended dischargeability to be determined by whether an obligation could be imposed under state law, it might have addressed dischargeability in those terms.”). In fact, as indicated above, the legislative history of section 523(a)(5) demonstrates that Congress determined that state support laws should not be determinative of whether a particular obligation is dischargeable. Cf. id. at 905 ; Shaver, 736 F.2d at 1315-17 (holding that a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders
B. holding that a statute that lowered the age of majority to 18 did not have retroactive effect on the plaintiffs lawsuit when the applicable statute of limitations was shortened because it was tied to the age of majority
C. holding that support does not encompass miscellaneous expenses
D. holding that a promise to pay postmajority educational expenses was nondischargeable support even though the relevant states law does not require such support past the age of majority
E. holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.