Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of paternity, the party so requesting a jury has the right thereto.” 4 In the trial court, respondent argued in his memorandum opposing the department’s effort to change the trial from a jury trial to a court trial, in part: “no legislative intent is present on the face of the legislation that would indicate a retroactive application of the legislation is appropriate. Absent such clear intention, the presumption is that the legislation should not be applied to pending cases.” 5 The dissent resorts to legislative history without a determination that there is an ambiguity. The fact that two statutes appear to conflict does not amount to an ambiguity that would allow the court to rely on legislative history. See J.R. Simplot Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 321 Or 253, 262, 897 P2d 316 (1995) . Further, the dissent’s analysis is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holdingafter considering the statutes whole text legislative history and purpose  that a consumer fraud provision did not impose criminal sanctions
B. recognizing longstanding precedents that permit resort to legislative history only when necessary to interpret ambiguous statutory text
C. holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear
D. holding that the court does not examine legislative history when the statutes text and context are not subject to more than one plausible reading
E. holding that we may consult legislative history as an aid to the interpretation of ambiguous text
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.