Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
results to be imbalanced while the other reader found four of the strips to show imbalances. The defense expert found five of the- strips to be imbalanced. No court can accurately assess those conclusions, because the dots fade and begin to disappear almost immediately. With such gross disparities in an admittedly subjective test, the Court cannot conclude that dot-intensity analysis is reliable. D. Even if dot-intensity analysis were presumed to be generally accepted, the evidence should have been rejected here because the assumptions underlying it were so numerous, complex, problematic, and potentially flawed as to render it substantially more confusing and prejudicial than probative in this specific context. See N.J.R.E. 403; Cavallo, supra, 88 N.J. at 520, 443 A.2d 1020 . Expert testimony, especially testimony such
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
B. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice
C. holding that expert evidence even if admissible under njre 702 must be excluded if it poses the danger that prejudice confusion and diversion of attention exceeds its helpfulness to the fact finder
D. holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible
E. holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.