With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". courts, as stated above. See, e.g., Lakeside Boating & Bathing, Inc., 402 N.W.2d at 422. In Lyster, the court observed that it had “recognized the potential that substantial arbitration fees may make an arbitration agreement unconscionable.” See Lyster, 239 F.3d at 947 (citing Dobbins v. Hawk’s Enters., 198 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir.1999)). However, the court rejected the plaintiffs contention about the unconscionability of the cost and fees provision of the arbitration agreement at issue in that case, as follows: Lyster has not established on the record before us that undue harshness exists in the terms of the Agreement'in light of Missouri law governing unconscionability. See Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90-92, 121 S.Ct. 513, 522, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Lyster, 239 F.3d at 947. Here, however, Faber

A: holding that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to show that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because plaintiffs claims of prohibitive costs were too speculative
B: holding that where the arbitration agreement was silent on feesplitting and the costs imposed upon the plaintiff by the aaa were not prohibitive the plaintiff had presented little evidence to indicate that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and the fees and costs of arbitration did not render the arbitration scheme unconscionable
C: holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement
D: holding the party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement because of prohibitive arbitration fees bears the burden of proof and the possibility of such party incurring prohibitive costs is too speculative to invalidate an arbitration agreement where the record reveals only that the agreement is silent on the subject of arbitration costs
D.