Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
621-622 (Tex. 1993). To be extreme and outrageous, conduct must be “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Mattix-Hill v. Reck, 923 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Tex.1996) (quoting Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 621). Distress is considered severe only if it is so severe “that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” Benavides v. Moore, 848 S.W.2d 190, 195 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). Severe emotional distress does not include mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. Regan v. Lee, 879 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). See also GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 612 (Tex.1999) . Whether conduct is extreme and outrageous and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that texas courts narrowly construe the intentional infliction of emotional distress doctrine
B. recognizing the same rule in texas courts
C. recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives
D. holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3
E. recognizing scotts admonition to construe the classbased animus requirement narrowly
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.