Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the appellant was being advised to limit his strenuous activity. Finally, the appellant’s argument that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.21, he “is not required to demonstrate that he meets all criteria for the next higher rating” lacks merit. Reply Br. at 3. He asserts that he “unquestionably satisfies two of the three criteria for the 40-percent rating.” Id. at 3. In light of the conjunctive “and” in the criteria for a 40% disability rating under DC 7913, all criteria must be met to establish entitlement to a 40% rating. See, e.g., Watson v. Dep’t of the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed.Cir.2001) (noting that inclusion of conjunctive “and” clearly indicates that all three criteria in 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.902 and 842.802 must be demonstrated); Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 379, 385 (1995) ; Malone v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 539 (1997)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statutory criteria for designation of an area of critical state concern  are constitutionally defective because they reposit in an agency the fundamental legislative task of determining which geo graphic areas and resources are in greatest need of protection
B. holding that criteria expressed in the conjunctive are connected by and
C. holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived
D. holding that views expressed by other courts on the merits and in particular a string of losses together with the actual merits of the governments litigating position are central to issue of whether position was substantially justified
E. recognizing that russell rejected a remedy that was neither expressed nor implied in the plan but that plaintiff claimed was implicit in the erisa statute 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.