With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not granted,” but does not “disallow every appeal when a rehearing is granted.” 307 S.W.3d at 275. Instead, the concurrence crafts an exception for a vaca- tur with rehearing that “amounts to a denial of confirmation.” Id. at 275. This interpretation sidesteps the statute’s plain language, further eviscerating subsection (5)’s policy that disallows an appeal when an order, which grants a rehearing, is interlocutory. Even the court of appeals in this case rejected such an argument, conceding that “[ujnder the plain language of the statute, a party can appeal the denial of an application to confirm an arbitration award, but cannot appeal an order which vacates an award and directs a rehearing.” 209 S.W.3d at 893. Furthermore, the concurrence’s argument contradicts e Ct.App.1965) (<HOLDING>); Max Rieke & Bros., Inc. v. Van Deurzen &

A: holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial
B: holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken
C: holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration
D: holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial
B.