Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the conduct of defendant’s business,” Tuxxedo Network, Inc. v. Hughes Communications Carrier Servs., Inc., 753 F.Supp. 514, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (Cedarbaum, J.), satisfying the second prong of the test. Fitzpatrick avers that the services performed by excess line brokers are so important that if their services were not available Anglo would have to perform their role itself. Anglo argues that Anglo could not take over the tasks of excess line brokers because insurance brokerage and underwriting are completely different and because excess line insurance is rarely written without a broker. This dispute misses the point of the test, which is the importance of the agents’ services to the principal, not the feasibility of the principals’ performing the agents’ role. Gelfand, 385 F.2d at 121  (emphasis added). The fact that excess line
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that test is whether services provided by new york representative are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them the corporations owm officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services
B. holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1
C. holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption
D. holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class
E. holding that an architects violation of a licensing statute did not render the contract to perform architectural services void and unenforceable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.