Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judicial body that confers standing to appeal.” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 354 (Collector Ed. 2005); see also, Walker v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, No. 09APP-748, 2010 Ohio 373 at ¶ 25 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010). Dr. Williams could not simultaneously pursue a writ of review in the Superior Court when the District Court entered a TRO, which became a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of V.I.B.M.E.’s decision to permanently revoke his license. The reason is that Rule 15(a)’s thirty-day limit only authorizes the Superior Court to consider a petition for writ of review brought by one who has been “aggrieved by the decision of an officer, board, commission, authority, or tribunal.” Cf. Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 392 Fed. Appx. 965, 977 (3d Cir. 2010)  (quoting Custer v. Sweeney, 89 F.3d 1156 (4th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase
B. holding that the phrase party aggrieved should be given a practical rather than hypertechnical meaning
C. recognizing that each word and phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part of it will be void inert redundant or trivial
D. holding that an undefined statutory term should be given its natural ordinary meaning
E. holding that party is aggrieved from the date of issuance but construing a statute rather than rule 15a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.