Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
664 A.2d 1370 (1995) (for purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not exist). The uncontradicted evidence indicates that Forrest McDanel and his wife, Jacquelyn, are named as the sole owners of the truck. There is no evidence supporting appellant’s allegation that the truck was titled in the name of McDanel Painting, or any other indication in the record that the truck was a commercial vehicle. Because there is no evidence in the official record that the truck was a commercial vehicle, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the status of the vehicle. Consequently, appellant’s claim that the truck was a commercial vehicle, and, thus, she is entitled to the presumption that the operation of the truck was for the owner’s purposes must fail. See Waters, supra . 4 . Although Forrest McDanel and his wife,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes
B. holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital
C. holding that the operation of a plant cafeteria was part of the plant owners business
D. holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business
E. holding that ownership of vehicle later involved in accident passed to buyer even though assignment of title not completed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.