Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
himself of training and educational opportunities offered by the Bureau of Prisons, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (directing the sentencing court to consider the need for the defendant’s sentence to provide educational and training opportunities)—was hardly compelling, particularly when juxtaposed with the district court’s reasons for denying Mial’s objection to the six-level enhancement. See Boulware, 604 F.3d at 839-40 (explaining that comparative weakness of a defendant’s argument(s) for a lower sentence is one reason to decline to remand a case for further explanation). Finally, we have little doubt that the district court considered this argument, as it was the only point advanced by counsel, and the Government specifically addressed it in its sentencing argument. See id. at 839 . For these reasons, we conclude that, even
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a defendant raises a nonfrivolous argument for a lower sentence the record must show that the district court considered it and explained the basis for rejecting it
B. holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it
C. holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it
D. holding that even if the district court erred by not adequately explaining its reasons for rejecting boulwares argument for a belowguidelines sentence we are quite confident that the district court undertook that analysis and considered boulwares argument
E. holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.