Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it incorrectly interprets or improperly applies the law. In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Services., 273 S.W.3d 637, 642-43 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Absent extraordinary circumstances, mandamus will not issue unless relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839). Whether a clear abuse of discretion can be adequately remedied by appeal depends on a careful analysis of costs and benefits of interlocutory review. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding). As this balance depends heavily on circumstances, it Worth 2009, orig. proceeding) ; In re Garza, 153 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Tex.App.-San
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders because they are not subject to interlocutory appeal
B. holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal
C. holding that mandamus was appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable
D. recognizing plenary power of district court to alter interlocutory orders
E. holding that mandamus is appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.