With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point,

A: holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable
B: holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable
C: holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence
D: holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040
D.