Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the amended complaint fails to sufficiently plead scienter. In opposition, the plaintiffs contend that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the defendants manipulated MSC’s reserves in order to meet predetermined earnings targets. The plaintiffs also assert that the amended complaint adequately pleads scienter. II. DISCUSSION A. The Standard of Review In a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court should dismiss the complaint only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his complaint which would entitle him to relief. See King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 286 (2d Cir.1999); Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir.1996); I. Meyer Pincus & Assocs. v. Oppenheimer & Co., 936 F.2d 759, 762 (2d Cir.1991) . The issue to consider is not whether a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that dismissal is inappropriate unless it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations
B. holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief
C. holding that a court may dismiss a claim under 12b6 only if it appears to a certainty that no relief can be granted under any set of facts provable in support of its allegations or if the allegations accepted as true do not present a claim upon which relief legally can be obtained
D. holding that rule 12b1 insubstantiality dismissal is appropriate if based on the judges disbelief of a complaints factual allegations whereas a rule 12b6 dismissal is appropriate where while operating under the assumption that all or a set of facts in the complaint are true without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations
E. holding that dismissal is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.