Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
merits, the court held Bolt was qualified to testify that Feltes failed to follow the work papers and perform all of the required interviews and inventory checks. II. Issues. Kircher raises two issues on appeal. The first deals with error preservation while the second deals with whether Bolt was qualified to testify as to generally accepted CPA auditing standards, whether the accountant breached those standards, and causation. III. Error Preservation. A ruling sustaining a motion in limine is generally not an evidentiary ruling. Twyford v. Weber, 220 N.W.2d 919, 923 (Iowa 1974). Rather, a ruling sustaining a motion in limine simply adds a procedural step to the introduction of allegedly objectionable evidence. Id.; accord Johnson v. Interstate Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 310, 317 (Iowa 1992) . Thus, a motion in limine “serves the useful
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
B. recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal
C. holding grant or denial of motion in limine is preliminary ruling and normally preserves nothing for appellate review
D. holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine
E. holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.