Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
also be liable for all injuries and property damage sustained by any person or domestic animal as a result of an attack by the dangerous dog. Id. § 2602(12). It is unclear why the Legislature provided for two definitions of one single term in two different subsections of the same statute. Nonetheless, ‘“[i]t is well established the [courts] should, if possible, construe statutes harmoniously.” V.I. Taxi Assoc. v. W. Indian Co., Ltd., 66 V.I. 473, 484 (V.I. 2017) (internal quotations omitted); see also Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) (‘“A court must therefore interpret the statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme, and fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.”) (internal citations omitted); Shumate v. Patterson, 943 F.2d 362, 365 (4th Cir. 1991) . Thus, all of the terms defined in section
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statutes dealing with same subject matter should be construed with reference to each other as parts of one system
B. recognizing possible conflict between the cases
C. recognizing the rule that whenever possible statutes should be read in harmony and not in conflict with each other
D. recognizing the conflict
E. recognizing conflict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.