With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". first clause inoperative. If N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) prohibits nothing more than a lane change conducted unsafely as described in the statute’s second clause, then the Legislature’s language in the first clause would have no meaning. When construing a statute, “ ‘[l]egislative language must not, if reasonably avoidable, be found to be inoperative, superfluous or meaningless.’ ” Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602, 613, 725 A.2d 1104 (1999) (quoting In re Sussex Cnty. Mun. Utils. Auth 5 (2001) (construing Md.Code Ann., Transp., § 21-309 to describe one offense); State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157, 967 P.2d 363, 366 (1998) (construing Mont.Code Ann. § 61-8-328 to prohibit only unsafe lane changes into other traffic lanes); State v. McBroom, 179 Or.App. 120, 39 P.3d 226, 229 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 870-72

A: holding that related provisions should be read together
B: holding that two clauses of orrevstat ann  811370 should be read together
C: recognizing that a statute should be read as comprehensive whole
D: holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims
B.