Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to decline jurisdiction under Colorado River, notwithstanding the presumption in favor of assuming jurisdiction. See, e.g., Rivera-Feliciano v. Acevedo-Vila, 438 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.2006); Currie v. Group Ins. Comm’n, 290 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2002); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foremost-McKesson, Inc., 751 F.2d 475 (1st Cir.1985). In our view, this is such a case. Applying the factors, we conclude that while some are neutral to our inquiry, the balance of them strongly favors abstention. We begin with the neutral factors, which may be summarized quickly. The federal and Puerto Rico forums are equally convenient (second factor); the Puerto Rico forum is well equipped to protect the parties’ interests (sixth factor), see United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., 483 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir.2007) ; there is nothing vexatious or contrived about
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the adequacy of the state forum is relevant only when it would disfavor abstention
B. holding that england and its reservations are not relevant  where the purpose of the abstention is not clarification of state law
C. holding that the question is not whether the party opposing abstention can demonstrate that the federal forum is a better or more convenient forum but whether the inconvenience of the federal forum is so great that this factor points towards abstention
D. recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
E. holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.