Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(same). If the direct evidence approach can ever supplant the market definition approach in a § 2 context, it can only do so where a reasonable juror could find the evidence conclusive as to why Defendants’ prices were higher. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 386 F.3d 485, 500 (“where direct evidence is unavailable or inconclusive, as here, monopoly power may be inferred from” the market definition approach); Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Marshfield Clinic, 65 F.3d 1406, 1411-12 (7th Cir.1995) (“a reasonable finder of fact cannot infer monopoly power just from higher prices — the difference may reflect a higher quality more costly to provide — and it is always treacherous to try to infer monopoly power from a high rate of return”); Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir.1997) . The Plaintiffs’ one-track focus on the price
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to pose a threat to monopolization one firm alone must have the power to control market output and exclude competition
B. holding that high prices with no showing of restricted output failed to establish monopoly power
C. holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market
D. holding police power is restricted by constitutional bill of rights
E. holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.