Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that he believed $15,000 would be reasonable. He also testified that, should the case go on to the Texas Supreme Court, another $5,000 to $7,000 would be required. O’Farrill’s attorney cross-examined the witness regarding the witness’s experience in filing appeals. O’Farrill’s attorney then took the stand and testified that reasonable appellate fees for an appeal to this court would be $1,500, and another $1,500 for an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. This conflicting testimony raised a fact issue, which was resolved by the trial judge when he awarded $10,000 in appellate fees for an appeal to this court and $5,000 for an appeal to the state supreme court. This amount was somewhat less than requested and a great deal more than O’Farrill’s attorneys argued was reasonable. See id. . Legally sufficient evidence was before the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable
B. holding that even if an experts testimony arguably embraced the ultimate issue such testimony is permissible as long as the experts testimony assists rather than supplants the jurys judgment
C. holding that conflicting testimony raised fact issue fact finder was not obliged to accept one experts testimony over the other
D. holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review
E. holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.