Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
lab in 1988, but that “the plaintiffs classified status terminated when the legislature [in the 1994 amendments] made all positions of the lab limited appointment positions subject to the approval of the Commission.” The motion justice further ruled that, after the 1994 amendments, “as a matter of law, plaintiff had no constitutionally protected interest [as a limited-appointment, crime-lab employee] * * * to which due-process protections attached.” She based this conclusion on her belief that the 1994 amendments had stripped Wilkinson of his classified full-status employment at the crime lab because the 1994 crime-lab amendments were a specific-effect statute that superseded the general, earlier-enacted provisions of the merit system. See Casey v. Sundlun, 615 A.2d 481, 483 (R.I.1992) . This Court “reviews the granting of a summary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern
B. holding that when two statutes are in conflict the more recent and specific statute should prevail so as to repeal the earlier general statute
C. holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict
D. recognizing that a specific statute controls over a general one
E. holding that gl1956  43326 embodies a policy of statutory construction that requires courts to give precedence to a specific statute over a general statute when the two are in conflict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.