With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 285 S.W.3d 884, 890 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (quotation omitted). B. Crush Analysis Testimony Yergin was apparently planning to testify about estimated speeds of the F-250 and the Hyundai based on the amount of “crush” to the Hyundai. Although Yer-gin testified in front of the jury that there was probably a difference in speed between the two vehicles of 10 to 20 miles per hour, she never stated at any time what speeds she estimated the vehicles to be traveling. Nor did appellant’s counsel explain to the court what speeds Yergin concluded the vehicles were traveling. This information would be crucial to understanding what testimony was excluded and whether the exclusion was harmful. See id. A general statement that she would testify about the vehicles’ speeds is insufficient. See id. at 891 (<HOLDING>). Further, appellant’s trial counsel explained

A: holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment
B: holding defendant was not required to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee because the employee did not apprise defendant that she suffered from a mental impairment
C: holding that a general statement about how the defendant wanted to introduce evidence of medical or mental impairment to show that the defendant lacked the proper mental state was an insufficient offer  there must be some meat of the actual evidence
D: holding that evidence of impaired mental functioning is inherently mitigating and that a defendant is not required to demonstrate a nexus between his mental capacity and the crime committed
C.