With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under Nevada’s “sale for resale” exemption. Instead, because the Nugget’s purchases of unprepared food were clearly not taxable under Nevada’s food exemption, the issue before us is whether the Nugget’s later use of that food (by preparing it and giving it away to patrons and employees free of charge) was taxable. For this reason, the Nugget’s “primary purpose” for obtaining the unprepared food is irrelevant to our resolution of this appeal, and our decision in Nevada Cement does not apply here. 3 Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). 4 Walker v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 815, 819, 101 P.3d 787, 790 (2004). 5 Nevada Power Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 102 Nev. 1, 4, 711 P.2d 867, 869 (1986); see Harvey v. Dist. Ct., 117 Nev. 754, 763, 32 P.3d 1263, 1269 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 6 Nevada Power, 102 Nev. at 4, 711 P.2d at

A: holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions
B: holding that courts interpret indemnity provisions same as written contracts
C: holding that public policy must be evidenced by constitutional or statutory provisions
D: recognizing that the rules of statutory construction apply when we interpret constitutional provisions
D.