Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the venire. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that counsel’s representation was objectively unreasonable and that, but for counsel’s errors, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 695, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, 698, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068-69 (1984); Foreman, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 142. In the present case, given all the evidence against defendant, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had counsel questioned, or asked the judge to question, the venire regarding the Zehr principles. Accordingly, defendant’s contention of ineffective assistance is without merit. See also Foreman, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 143 . In his reply brief, defendant argues that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
B. holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different
C. holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
D. holding that counsels failure to question the venire regarding the zehr principles did not constitute ineffective assistance where there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different
E. holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.