With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This narrow review addresses “only such issues as are essential to defining the nature of the forum in which a dispute will be decided.” Larry’s United Super, Inc. v. Werries, 253 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). Review is not extended “to the consideration of public policy advantages or disadvantages resulting from the enforcement of the agreement.” Gannon v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 262 F.3d 677, 682 (8th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). Likewise, questions concerning remedy are outside the scope of review since the validity of the agreement to arbitrate is not affected. See Arkcom Digital, 289 F.3d at 539. In this case, the arbitration agreement proves to be valid and enforceable under Missouri law. As shown above, the second-pron 305, 310-12 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court finds the arbitration

A: holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration
B: holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
C: holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration
D: holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration
D.