Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to explain adequately the basis for its interpretation of “persistent” as applied to the evaluation of tinnitus under pre-1999 DC 6260. Suppl. Br. at 3. The Board reached its decision (1) without referring to the Secretary’s conclusion that an attribute of constancy was not well suited for rating a condition that, “under certain circumstances, comes and goes”, 59 Fed.Reg. at 17,297; (2) by paraphrasing only selectively from the Secretary’s 1994 Supplementary Information, ibid.; and (3) by basing its conclusion solely on one dictionary definition of “persistent” (R. at 8). See Theiss, 18 Vet.App. at 210-11 (criticizing General Counsel precedent opinion, upon which Board had relied, for “selective use of a narrow set of definitions”); see also Suozzi v. Broim, 10 Vet.App. 307, 311 (1997) . In this regard, the Court notes that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute
B. holding that secretary defines corroboration far too narrowly in interpreting 38 cfr  3304f
C. holding federal and not state law defines the term registrant
D. holding the court should only apply the doctrine narrowly and only under exceptional circumstances
E. holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.