Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Supreme Court cases narrowing general jurisdiction’s scope. See Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 761; Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846. But Gorman’s reasoning remains valid as applied to specific jurisdiction, so long as that the cause of action "arises out of” District residents’ internet transactions with the defendant. 6 . The Supreme Court reversed Shute v, Carnival Cruise Lines on other grounds, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S,Ct. 1522, 113 L,Ed.2d 622 (1991), but the Ninth Circuit held that its "but for test” was unaffected, Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 . It is unclear whether. Shoppers held that "discernable relationship” is the appropriate standard for the nexus requirement under the D.C. long-arm statute,' the Due Process Clause, or both. See 746 A.2d at 335 . In any event, because the Court’s opinion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we are to apply the legislative intent underlying a statute and to construe the statute in such a way as to prevent absurdity
B. recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results
C. recognizing that the same term appearing in two prior art patents listing the same inventor should be construed the same way
D. holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity
E. holding that the nexus requirement in the longarm statute should be interpreted in the same way as the supreme courts due process nexus requirement and that that way is the discernable relationship test
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.