Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conviction. Plaintiffs claim that the excluded evidence would have called the credibility of several of Apollo’s witnesses into question. This Court reviews a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Townsend, 31 F.3d at 267. Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) states: Specific instances of the conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided by rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. By its language, Rule 608(b) clearly prevents the Plaintiffs from presenting evidence of specific instances of untruthful conduct by certain Apollo witness to show that these witnesses had a propensity for untruthfulness. 28 ChaRles Alan Weight & VictoR James Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure § 6117 (1993) . In addition, Fed.R.Evid. 403 allows the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that opinion testimony was inadmissible to prove a persons character or character trait when maine rule of evidence 405 permitted only evidence of reputation or specific instances of conduct
B. 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
C. holding extrinsic evidence contradicting language in will inadmissible when will is unambiguous
D. recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing
E. recognizing that under the proper application of rule 608b extrinsic evidence of specific instances of bad conduct is made inadmissible when offered to prove a witnesss character for untruthfulness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.