Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir.1994); Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 418. The “minimum contacts” aspect of due process can be satisfied by either finding specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction. See Wilson, 20 F.3d at 647. If the conduct of a defendant that supports personal jurisdiction is related to a stated cause of action, personal jurisdiction is known as “specific jurisdiction.” See Ruston Gas Turbines, 9 F.3d at 418-19. The minimum contacts prong for specific jurisdiction can be satisfied by a single act if the nonresident defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) ; Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold
B. holding that the defendant must have created a substantial connection to the forum state by action purposefully directed toward the forum state or otherwise invoking the benefits and protections of the laws of the state
C. holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas
D. holding that a defendant establishes minimum contacts by purposely engaging in conduct directed toward the forum state such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there
E. holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposely directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.