Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provision is unambiguous in setting forth, “We do not cover loss caused by mold”); Lundstrom v. United Services Auto. Ass’n-CIC, 192 S.W.3d 78, 91 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (presuming without deciding that even if the mold were a covered loss under the policy, the mold is not negligence claims can sometimes be asserted in the claims-handling context. See St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dai-Worth Tank Co., Inc., 917 S.W.2d 29, 53-54 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1995); aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 974 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). 19 .See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h) ("The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); San Saba Energy, L.P., 171 S.W.3d at 338 ; Wright v. Greenberg, 2 S.W.3d 666, 673
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that parties asserting error on appeal must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument
B. holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue
C. holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument
D. holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument
E. holding party must support argument with legal authority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.