Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 349 S.C. 356, 361, 563 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). “In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn. from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” David v. McLeod Reg’l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247, 626 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006). A motion for summary judgment on the basis of the absence of a duty is a question of law for the court to determine. See Doe v. Greenville County Sch. Dist., 375 S.C. 63, 72, 651 S.E.2d 305, 309 (2007) . LAW/ANALYSIS Oblachinski contends the circuit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the critical question is whether any present violation exists
B. holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided
C. holding that such a duty exists
D. holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law
E. recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.