Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a bank lo t know about his damages, his testimony is no evidence of damages. See Tate v. Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon, 24 S.W.3d 627, 635 (Tex.App.Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (“Damages must be ascertainable in some manner other than by mere speculation or conjecture, and by reference to some fairly definite standard, established experience, or direct inference from known facts.”). Further, even if we disregarded Dr. Cravens’s reb-anee upon Dr. Ruhter’s opinions and his “I don’t know” statements, his testimony would still be no evidence because it was entirely conclusory. See Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150, 156-57 (Tex.2012) (confirming that conclu-sory or speculative testimony will not support a judgment); Holt Atherton Indus., Inc., 835 S.W.2d at 84 . We hold that Dr. Cravens’s testimony was no
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that owners testimony that he lost 200200 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the owner determined what his lost profits were
B. holding that testimony of owner that he lost approximately 200000 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the damages were determined
C. holding evidence legally sufficient
D. holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently
E. holding evidence legally insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.