Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to consider all three factors of volume, price, and impact.” Id. at 115 (emphasis added). Second, the report indicates that, when “determining the effect of [LTFV] imports on the domestic industry,” the Commission must ask whether the imports “are materially injuring the domestic industry!,]” id. at 116 (emphasis added), supporting the requirement of a material contribution to the overall harm by the LTFV imports themselves. The Senate Report to the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 also states that the “law does not * * * contemplate that the effects from [LTFV] imports be weighed against the effects associated with other factors].]” S. Rep. No. 96-249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 74 (1979). See also Citrosuco Paulista v. United States, 12 CIT 1196, 1228, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1101 (1988); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense
B. holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury
C. holding that the exclusion from category of compensable injuries of an injury resulting directly or indirectly from idiopathic causes is in the nature of an affirmative defense to employer and that it was not the claimants burden to prove an injury was not idiopathic but instead the employers burden to prove that it was
D. holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 
E. holding that the commission may not weigh causes and an affirmative injury determination is warranted if ltfv imports contribute even minimally
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.