Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
if the producer intends it to be used for that disease or condition. FDA responds that “for such disease or condition” refers only to the uses included on a drug’s label. The statute does not unambiguously foreclose FDA’s interpretation. Because Congress has not “directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” we must determine whether the agency’s interpretation is “a permissible construction” of the Orphan Drug Act. Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sebelius, 595 F.3d 1303, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (applying Chevron). We conclude that it is. First, FDA’s reading of the statute closely hews to the text. See Abbott Labs. v. Young, 920 F.2d 984, 988 (D.C. Cir. 1990) . As the Fourth Circuit reasoned in Sigma-Tau
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent
B. recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language
C. recognizing that the government  must demonstrate the reasonableness not only of its litigation position but also of the agencys actions  
D. recognizing that the reasonableness of an agencys interpretation turns in part on the constructions fit with the statutory language
E. holding that stare decisis required the court to adhere to a prior statutory interpretation despite the agencys subsequent interpretation of the statute contrary to the settled law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.