With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lack any procedural tool titled a “motion for reconsideration.” Rather, a party may file a motion under Rule 59(e) to amend a judgment or under Rule 60(b) to seek relief from a final judgment. Where a post-judgment motion fails to identify its basis for challenging a judgment, yet falls within the filing deadline set by Rule 59, we have considered it a Rule 59(e) motion. See Hood v. Hood, 59 F.3d 40, 43 n.1 (6th Cir. 1995); Westerfield v. United States, 366 Fed.Appx. 614, 619 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). And an appeal from an order denying a Rule 59(e) motion allows us to review the underlying judgment. See Hood, 59 F.3d at 43 n.1; Westerfield, 366 Fed.Appx. at 619 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Here, Scadden’s motion for reconsideration

A: holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal
B: holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment
C: holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review
D: holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment
B.