With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". History, 15 St. MARY’S L.J. 855, 878-79 (1984). Under the rule an nounced today, if Travis County, the venue chosen by Plaintiffs, was a county of proper venue, then Blanco County cannot be a county of proper venue as a matter of law. We review the entire record, including the trial on the merits, to determine whether there is any probative evidence that venue was proper in Travis County. Ruiz, 868 S.W.2d at 758. This review strikes a balance between the competing interests of the plaintiff and the defendant. It preserves the plaintiffs right to select and maintain suit in a county of proper venue. And, it protects the defendant from fraud or inaccuracy at the pleading stage. See Dan R. Price, New Texas Venue Statute: Legislative History, 15 St. MaRy’s L.J. 855, 877-78 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Because the Plaintiffs have sued a

A: recognizing that brooks protects against denial of counsel at a critical stage of his trial
B: holding that the failure of three defendants to object to venue did not waive a fourth defendants objection and therefore affirming the trial courts decision to transfer venue
C: recognizing that the appellate courts review of the entire record protects against fraud or inaccuracy that might not be discoverable at the motion to transfer venue stage
D: holding that when party seeking transfer substantiates change of venue by merely alleging hardship and where such allegations have been specifically denied in plaintiffs answer superior court properly reversed grant of motion to transfer cases venue due to inadequate record upon which to sustain motion
C.