Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“I hereby agree that any dispute related to my employment relationship shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration.” lb. Thus, this circumstance of Adler and Fred Lind Manor’s transaction does not support Adler’s claim of procedural unconscionability. 126 Nevertheless, we have cautioned that these factors should “not be applied mechanically without regard to whether in truth a meaningful choice existed.” Nelson, 127 Wn.2d at 131. Although Fred Lind Manor appears to have provided Adler with a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the agreement, and the important terms were not hidden, Adler and Fred Lind Manor offer remarkably different versions of the facts pertaining to the manner in which the contract was entered into. Cf. Luna, 236 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 . Consequently, we cannot make a determination
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document
B. holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision
C. holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable
D. holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract
E. holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish unconscionability based upon the alleged excessive cost of arbitration because they failed to supply information as to the actual costs that might be incurred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.