Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the district court, holding that a competitive injury must be shown in order to state a claim under § 192(a) and (b). Because I believe that no such showing is required, I dissent. II Proper statutory analysis begins with the plain text of the statute. See Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193, 127 S.Ct. 2352, 2356, 168 L.Ed.2d 85 (2007) (“We begin, as always, with the text of the statute.”) (citation omitted); Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 265, 101 S.Ct. 1673, 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981) (“The starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.”) (quotation omitted); see also In re Rogers, 513 F.3d 212, 225 (5th Cir.2008). “It is well established that when a statut 9, 118 S.Ct. 285, 139 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997) . The remaining parts of § 192 further support
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that undefined words in a statute ordinarily should be interpreted as taking their ordinary contemporary common meaning
B. holding that ordinarily courts are not obligated to review evidence presented for the first time on appeal
C. holding that ordinarily a statute must be construed in a manner which protects its constitutionality
D. holding that courts ordinarily should resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not appear on its face
E. holding that courts must avoid adding conditions to the applicability of a statute that do not appear in the provisions text
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.