With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id, citing Parking Unlimited, Inc. v. Monsour Med. Found., 299 Pa.Super. 289, 445 A.2d 758 (1982) and Pein v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 241 Pa.Super. 283, 361 A.2d 348 (1976). Contrary to Appellee’s assertion, we do not find that Appellant’s failure to order a transcript precludes our review of the instant ease. Foremost, an appellant has no obligation to order a transcript of the arbitration proceedings. See Cerankowski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 783 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied 568 Pa. 692, 796 A.2d 977 (2002). Secondly, where, as here, the petitioner has asked us to consider a pure question of law, a presumption of validity does not exist, see Kopko, 586 Pa. at 177, 892 A.2d at 771, and we need not review a transcript. See Cerankowski, supra (<HOLDING>). , ¶20 Furthermore, we do not find the

A: holding that a mandatory arbitration clause does not preclude litigating a federal statutory claim
B: holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review
C: holding that the absence of a stenographic record of an arbitration did not preclude review where the claimant alleged that a clause was contrary to public policy a pure question of law
D: holding that alleged theft of funds is within arbitration clause
C.