Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to be given full effect and did not intend any provision to be mere sur-plusage.” Id. G.S. § 160A-48(d)(2) provides that a non-urban area may be annexed if it is “adjacent, on at least sixty percent (60%) of its external boundary, to any combination of the municipal boundary and the boundary of an area or areas developed for urban purposes as defined in subsection (c).” (emphasis added). CP&L properly notes that “[o]rdinarily, when the conjunctive ‘and’ connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to be considered jointly.” Lithium Corp., 261 N.C. at 636, 135 S.E.2d at 577. However G.S. § 160A-48(d)(2) does not use the word “and” alone; the statute also includes other words which bear on its meaning. See Builders, Inc., 302 N.C. at 556, 276 S.E.2d at 447 . Notably, the statute uses the word
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a contract must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all of its provisions citation omitted
B. holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language
C. holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language
D. holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract
E. recognizing courts must interpret statutes to give effect to all language used rendering no portion meaningless or superfluous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.