With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 569 (quoting Miller, 229 N.W.2d at 768) (internal quotation marks omitted). The key to deciding whether the general rule or the exception applies in a given case is determining what the trial court purported to do in its ruling. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d at 406. As we have recognized: “A ruling only granting or denying protection from prejudicial references to challenged evidence cannot preserve the inadmissibility issue for appellate review.” However, “if the ruling reaches the ultimate issue [of admissibility] and declares the evidence admissible or inadmissible, it is ordinarily a final ruling and need not be questioned again during trial [to preserve error].” Id. (quoting State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979)). Compare State v. Daly, 623 N.W.2d 799, 800 (Iowa 2001) (<HOLDING>), with Johnson, 481 N.W.2d at 316-17 (holding

A: holding that the exception to the general rule applied even though the court did not specifically rule the evidence was inadmissible because the ruling was definitive and reached the ultimate issue of admissibility
B: holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports
C: holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes
D: holding that while a magistrate lacked the authority to enter an order granting a motion to correct error and thus that the order was defective for failing to contain the judges signature or another indication it was approved or adopted by the trial court the city waived any challenge to the validity of the order by failing to make a timely objection and observing that the indiana supreme court has long held that defects in the authority of a court officer as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection and more recently this court has applied the same principle to civil proceedings and clarified that any objection to the authority of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity occurs or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect
C.