Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the “entire Caribbean” over CCC’s station — which in fact reached only a fraction of that area — and therefore that they did not need to advertise with CBS as well. (¶¶ 30-34) The complaint also alleges that CCC and C&W made sham technical objections to CBS’s application for a broadcast license for the purpose of defeating that application and thereby ensuring that CCC would continue to enjoy a monopoly. (¶¶ 35-40) Contrary to the arguments of C&W, such allegations do support the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. A would-be monopolist or member of a conspiracy to monopolize comes within the condemnation of the Sherman Act when it engages in “anti-competitive conduct.” See, e.g., Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456, 113 S.Ct. 884, 122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993) . “Anticompetitive conduct” can come in too
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2
B. recognizing the sherman acts central interest in protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market
C. holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under  2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market
D. holding district court erred by incorporating issue of anticompetitive market effect into its standing analysis confusing antitrust injury with an element of a claim under section 1 of the sherman act and stating district courts approach may have been result of the similar antitrust injury label applied to injury component of antitrust standing analysis and to marketplace harm element under section 1
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.