Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
... mitigation.”). In either event, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ or DEP on this issue. In this appeal, the Authority argues that section 373. urance Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)). While the Authority cites to legislative history that seems to indicate that the legislature’s intent was to require the mitigation to “fully offset” the adverse impacts, the statute as enacted does not contain that language, and this court cannot rewrite the statute to say so. See State v. Jett, 626 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1993) (“It is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction, however wise it may seem to alter the plain language.”); Ervin v. Collins, 85 So.2d 852, 855 (Fla.1956) . Ironically the statute itself, as written,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not
B. holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough
C. holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous
D. holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law
E. holding that the court is not permitted to revise an unambiguous statute by engrafting  our views as to how it should have been written
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.