With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". tit. 47, § 1151(E). Section 11-406 provides for a narrow exception to this general prohibition for “implements of husbandry” driven on roadways other than highways. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11^406. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the ATV operator’s purpose in driving on a roadway does not determine whether the ATV operator violated § 1151. Rather, the mere act of driving an ATV on a street or highway is a violation of § 1151. The ATV operator’s purpose is relevant only to determine whether his otherwise unlawful conduct is deemed lawful under the narrow exception in § 11-406. To adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation of Oklahoma law would render the general prohibition of ATVs on Oklahoma streets and highways in § 1151 meaningless. See TWA v. McKinley, 749 P.2d 108, 110 (Okla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Because the jury could have found that

A: holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent
B: holding when two statutes cover the same general subject the statutes are construed together in order to arrive at the legislative intent in any particular section
C: holding that statutes are to be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent and in a manner that will not render the statutes application absurd unreasonable or unjust internal quotation marks and citation omitted
D: recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical
B.