Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that every other Texas appellate decision concerning this issue, with the exception of the court of appeals’ opinion in this case, has interpreted it the same way. See Thrivent, 251 S.W.3d at 627; Stolhandske v. Stem, 14 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d at 331. The TAA directs us to construe its provisions so as to “make uniform the construction of other states’ law applicable to an arbitration”; we come closer to that mandate by holding that an interlocutory order that directs a rehearing may not be appealed. III. Precedent and statutory interpretation instruct us to treat an order vacating an award and directing a rehearing as the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial. The Court tak f Transp., 581 A.2d at 815 ; Minn. Teamsters Pub. & Law Enforcement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken
B. holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable
C. holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial
D. holding that barring appeal from an order that vacates an arbitration award and directs a rehearing is consistent with the policy of barring an immediate appeal from the granting of a new trial in a civil case
E. holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.