With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (5) after the peremptory strikes are exhausted, the defendant must request additional peremptory strikes to cure the error from the erroneous denial of the challenge(s) for cause; (6) the request for sufficient additional peremptory strikes to cure the error from the erroneous denial of the challenge(s) for cause must be denied; and (7) finally, the defendant must identify at least one member who was selected to serve on the jury as objectionable, the significance being that the objectionable juror(s) would have been peremptorily struck had the trial court not erred in denying the challenge(s) for cause. Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 581 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 5, 2001 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 23 at *11 (<HOLDING>). This well-established case law places a

A: holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice
B: holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error
C: holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error
D: holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error
D.