Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the capacity of the proposed ward. Section 684(a)(1) of the Probate Code states as much. Furthermore, given the plain wording of section 643, an applicant for guardianship is entitled to have the jury address that fact, assuming its provisions are satisfied. So, if Green was correct in his reading of section 692, then the applicant would be obligated to prove to the trial court that the proposed ward was an incapacitated person in order to win the right to prove the same thing to a jury. In short, two trials would be required; one to a trial court in order to secure one to a jury. Yet, such an inefficient and wasteful result would be absurd and hardly that intended by the legislature. See Cooper v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 985 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.) . Next, and again assuming the accuracy of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result
B. recognizing the legal concept that when interpreting a statute it is presumed that the legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result
C. holding that we may look beyond text of statute or rule where plain language is unambiguous but would lead to an absurd result that drafters cannot have intended
D. holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result
E. recognizing that the cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature and to avoid construing a statute in a manner that produces an absurd unjust or unreasonable result
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.