With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". order indicates the trial judge considered only (1) Wingate’s later role as the attorney for Spence’s estate, and (2) the fact that Wingate did not represent Wife individually at the time of Spence’s death. The trial judge did not mention Wife’s alternative theory of liability that, as a former client of Respondents, she had a continuing fiduciary relationship with them that would not be affected by section 62-1-109. There is nothing in the appealed order suggesting the trial judge determined this statute absolved Wingate of all responsibilities to Wife regardless of when or how they arose. Absent an explicit ruling on the argument Wife advances in her appeal, we cannot disturb the trial judge’s decision. See Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 460, 535 S.E.2d 438, 444-45 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Van Blarcum v. City of N. Myrtle Beach, 337

A: holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review
B: holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court
C: holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review
D: recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review
A.