With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". merits, the court held Bolt was qualified to testify that Feltes failed to follow the work papers and perform all of the required interviews and inventory checks. II. Issues. Kircher raises two issues on appeal. The first deals with error preservation while the second deals with whether Bolt was qualified to testify as to generally accepted CPA auditing standards, whether the accountant breached those standards, and causation. III. Error Preservation. A ruling sustaining a motion in limine is generally not an evidentiary ruling. Twyford v. Weber, 220 N.W.2d 919, 923 (Iowa 1974). Rather, a ruling sustaining a motion in limine simply adds a procedural step to the introduction of allegedly objectionable evidence. Id.; accord Johnson v. Interstate Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 310, 317 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a motion in limine “serves the useful

A: holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
B: holding grant or denial of motion in limine is preliminary ruling and normally preserves nothing for appellate review
C: holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine
D: recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal
D.