With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rely on a license for a defense. See Model Penal Code § 3.01(1) (“[JJustification is an affirmative defense.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 977 (10th ed.2014) (defining “justification” as “[a] showing, in court, of a sufficient reason why a defendant acted in a way that, in the absence of the reason, would constitute the offense with which the defendant is charged”). To say that a defendant must prove licensure in those instances when he relies on a license for his defense implies that there may be other instances in which licensure is not viewed as a defense, and in those instances the defendant may not need to prove it. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the legislature to include the limiting language. See Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalberb, 454 Mass. 407, 910 N.E.2d 330, 336 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the text of section 7, standing alone,

A: recognizing that statutes should be construed to avoid conflict and to form a harmonious whole
B: holding that wire and mail fraud statutes are construed identically
C: recognizing that under massachusetts law statutes are construed to avoid surplusage
D: holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed
C.