Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Equal Access Law that that statute confers a private benefit. Specifically, it grants “equal access to the jails of this state” to any “person who holds a valid bail agent’s license.” I.C. § 27-10-3-18. In entitling bail agents to equal access to Indiana’s jails, the statute ensures that bail agents can do business on the same terms. And while the public might receive a benefit from that business, any public benefit is ancillary to the direct benefit conferred on bail agents. Nonetheless, Sheriff Galloway contends that the IDOI has the authority to enforce Indiana’s Bail Law, codified at Title 27, Article 10 of the Indiana Code. Accordingly, he continues, the Equal Access Law cannot create a private cause of action. See, e.g., Coons v. Kaiser, 567 N.E.2d 851, 852 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) . We cannot agree. The IDOI regulates bail
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls
B. holding that when a statute includes a specific enforcement provision an additional private cause of action based upon the statute cannot be judicially inferred
C. holding that we have consistently held that a private cause of action will not be found where the legislature has expressly provided for enforcement of a statute
D. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act
E. holding that personal bias cannot be inferred from an adverse ruling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.