Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 1871-72 (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)); see also Dunham, 967 F.2d at 1124; Williams v. Chrans, 957 F.2d 487, 490 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 595, 121 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992). The district court’s conclusion below was not clearly erroneous, as we are not left with the “ ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 370, 111 S.Ct. at 1872 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). We have in the past upheld as race-neutral peremptory challenges based on the failure to attain a certain educational level. See Marin, 7 F.3d at 686-87; United States v. Tucker, 773 F.2d 136, 142 (7th Cir.1985) , cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021, 1022, 106 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that age is an acceptable raceneutral reason for striking a prospective juror
B. holding raceneutral basis for preemptory challenge was pretext where stated reasons for challenge not supported by venirepersons statements
C. holding prebatson that challenge to africanamericans who had limited education was raceneutral
D. holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law required is a valid raceneutral reason for excluding a juror
E. holding that there was a raceneutral reason the states use of a peremptory challenge against a venireperson who had a very individualistic hairstyle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.