Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: person convicted and sentenced pursuant to this subsection for a first offense or second offense may have the sentence suspended and probation granted, and is eligible for parole, supervised furlough, community supervision, work release, work credits, education credits, and good conduct credits." 2010 Act No. 273, 38 (emphases added). Similar language was added to subsection (A) of section 44-53-375 and various provisions in section 44-53-370 covering controlled substances. The legislature's use of the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," in the amendments to sections 44-53-375 and -370 expresses its intent to repeal section 24-13-100 to the extent it conflicts with amended sections 44-53-375 and -370. See Stone v. State, 313 S.C. 533, 535, 443 S.E.2d 544, 545 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Hair v. State, 305 S.C. 77, 79, 406 S.E.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls (B) holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict (C) holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter (D) holding that an earlier specific statute trumps a later more general one (E) holding that when two statutes are in conflict the more recent and specific statute should prevail so as to repeal the earlier general statute
A:
(E)