Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of damage ... is satisfied by ... proof of some damage flowing from the unlawful conspiracy; inquiry beyond this minimum point goes only to the amount and not the fact of damage” (emphasis added)). In sum, Dr. Beyer’s declaration provides a reasonable basis and a feasible means for plaintiffs to prove impact on a class-wide basis. At the class certification stage, the court’s task is not to determine whether his opinion will ultimately be persuasive, but rather to evaluate whether his declaration is sufficient to demonstrate common questions of fact warranting class certification. See In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Lit., 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2001). The court is satisfied that his declaration satisfies this criteria. See, e.g., Linerboard Antitrust Lit., 203 F.R.D. at 220 ; In re Vitamins Antitrust Lit., 209 F.R.D.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims must put parties on sufficient notice of underlying arguments or arguments are deemed waived
B. holding that where counsel failed to articulate below the arguments they urged on appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence the arguments were waived
C. holding arguments not raised on appeal waived
D. recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law
E. holding plaintiffs demonstrated a means of proving impact on a classwide basis despite defendants arguments regarding variations in products and pricing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.