Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rule does not dispose of the case sub judien, however, because Sherwood originally made a motion for judgment at the close of its own evidence, not at the close of its opponent’s evidence. The rationale for holding that merely "renewing” a motion for judgment does not preserve the issue for appeal is that the original motion for judgment is withdrawn once the party making the motion presents evidence. Smith v. Carr, 189 Md. 338, 56 A.2d 151 (1947); Md. Rule 2-519(c). Because Sherwood had already presented its evidence when it initially moved for judgment, and because it is evident that the reasons for the motion were clear to the trial judge, the issue is preserved. Hartford does not contend otherwise. See Laubach v. Franklin Square Hospital, 79 Md. App. 203, 216, 556 A.2d 682 (1989)  (citing Sergeant Co. v. Pickett, 283 Md. 284,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived
B. holding plaintiffs reference to and attachment of franchise agreement excerpts in opposition to defendants motion did not convert motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not introduce support for arguments beyond the allegations in the complaint
C. holding that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed
D. holding that information contained in affidavits and depositions submitted as attachments to a memorandum were properly before the trial court and appellate court for purposes of a motion for summary judgment
E. holding that reference to memorandum previously submitted to court laying out with particularity arguments in support of motion preserves issue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.