With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Gillman, supra; Liparoto Constr., supra. SSW Holding argues that the arbitration clauses violate public policy because they were part of a conspiracy to commit civil and criminal fraud. Additionally, SSW Holding contends that it “had absolutely no input as to the language of the arbitration provisions,” that BDO designed in a fraudulent manner to conceal its wrongful conduct, and that BDO never discussed the provisions with it. Further, SSW Holding asserts that BDO presented the DDS as a package deal and that SSW Holding had to enter into the Consulting Italia, S.p.A., 117 F.3d 655, 667 (2d Cir.1997) (case properly sent to arbitration when there was no fraud or misrepresentation directly relating to arbitration clause); Kowalewski v. Samandarow, 590 F.Supp.2d 477, 487 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>). Because the circuit court found that the

A: holding a challenge of unconscionability to the whole contract as opposed to the arbitration provision specifically is an arbitrable matter not properly considered by the court
B: holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision
C: holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court
D: holding that because respondents challenged a contract broadly without challenging the arbitration clause specifically challenge must be considered by an arbitrator
A.