With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". connection test” of Rule 701 requires that the opinion or inference is one that a normal person would form on the basis of the observed facts. Carton v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 303 Ark. 568, 571-72, 798 S.W.2d 674, 675 (1990). We will not reverse a court’s decision to admit relevant evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Moore v. State, 323 Ark. 529, 549, 915 S.W.2d 284, 295 (1996). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in permitting Dr. Doland to testify without first requiring DHS to qualify her as an expert witness. In our view, Dr. Doland’s opinion that someone would have more extensive burns if they fell into a bathtub of scalding water is an opinion that a normal person could form on the basis of the observed facts. See Carton, 303 Ark. at 572, 798 S.W.2d at 676 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellant cross-examined Dr. Doland

A: holding that a wifes net worth of approximately 62000 demonstrated her ability to pay her own attorneys fees notwithstanding her objection that her assets were illiquid in the form of home equity and a state retirement account
B: holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
C: holding that opinion that fuel oil on her shoes caused her to fall is one which a normal person would form on the basis of observed facts
D: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
C.