Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
North Carolina is commonly called an “absolute” jurisdiction, but its holdings that refusal cannot be reconsidered involve consent given outside the thirty-minute period. See Etheridge v. Peters, 269 S.E.2d 133, 136 (N.C. 1980) (finding willful refusal to submit to test after statutory thirty-minute period had expired); Seders v. Powell, 259 S.E.2d 544, 548-50 (N.C. 1979) (same). These cases do not make clear whether an operator may reconsider a refusal within the thirty-minute period. ¶ 18. The many courts that allow operators to reconsider a refusal coalesce around two rationales: (1) fairness to the operator, and (2) furthering the purpose of implied-consent statutes by encouraging the administration of chemical tests in as many cases as possible. See, e.g., Gaunt, 666 P.2d at 527 ; Moore, 614 P.2d at 935 (“We . . . decline to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results
B. recognizing rule
C. recognizing clarity afforded by absolute rule but concluding that it could lead to unnecessarily harsh and selfdefeating results
D. holding deadlines may lead to unwelcome results but they prompt parties to act and they produce finality
E. holding that a narrow interpretation of the word fraud in tolling statute would lead to absurd and unjust results
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.