Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Carter, supra, 566 A.2d at 717. Any doubts in this regard are to be “resolved in favor of coverage.” Id. As it is clear that Article II, Section 12 can be interpreted rationally to include the underlying dispute between the parties here, we hold, as a matter of law, that the parties’ dispute falls within the scope of their agreement to arbitrate. Our decision to enforce the Beth Din provision in Ohev Sholom’s bylaws is consistent with every other decision of which we are aware in which an appellate court in a jurisdiction, like ours, that has adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act has addressed the enforceability of an agreement to refer a dispute to a Beth Din. See In re Marriage of Popack, 998 P.2d 464, 465-68 (Colo.2000) ; Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules
B. holding that an agreement to arbitrate before a beth din is enforceable under the colorado uniform arbitration act as long it is not unconscionable and did not result from duress
C. holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy
D. holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants
E. holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.