Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in Los Angeles, it also existed in or had any effect on the Malibu area. Rather, the City uncritically adopted the findings of the Los Angeles County ordinance, an ordinance that applies not only to a much broader geographic area than Malibu, but also to all forms of rental housing. Thus, the City’s position is not based on actual facts, but instead on the notion that because other courts have accepted the monopoly argument in other contexts and other geographical areas, this Court is compelled to accept it as applied to mobile home housing in Malibu. See, e.g., Pennell, 485 U.S. at 12, 108 S.Ct. at 857-58 (accepting monopoly argument where plaintiffs did not dispute it); Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129, 160-64, 130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 488-91, 550 P.2d 1001, 1024-27 (1976) . The difficulty with the City’s position is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that findings made by lower courts showed rational basis for monopoly argument in the specific context of apartment rentals in alameda county
B. holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification
C. recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review
D. holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction
E. holding that the lower courts findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under ars  25403
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.