Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that it evidences not the exercise of will but the perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but the defiance of judgment, not the exercise of reason but instead passion or bias.” Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 256, 662 N.E.2d 1, quoting State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264, quoting Spalding v. Spalding (1959), 355 Mich. 382, 384-385, 94 N.W.2d 810. {¶ 11} This court has previously been split as to the standard of review for the granting or denial of a motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending arbitration. GB AZ 1, L.L.C. v. Arizona Motors, L.L.C., Cuyahoga App. No. 95502, 2011-Ohio-1808, 2011 WL 1419636. See Vanyo v. Clear Channel Worldwide, 156 Ohio App.3d 706, 2004-Ohio-1793, 808 N.E.2d 482 . Cf. Bevan v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cuyahoga
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that whether a statute affects sentencing is a question of law subject to de novo review
B. recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review
C. holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo
D. holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review
E. holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.