With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". tests on Plaintiffs Ford Explorer, and other 2011-2015 Ford Explorers. Renfroe details his testing on the subject vehicles for air/gas leakage into the vehicles, pressure differentials between the inside and outside' rear of the vehicles, and carbon monoxide accumulation inside the vehicles. Ford takes issue with the reliability and repeatability of Renfroe’s tests, including the chosen sample class and various aspects of the testing methodology. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that these challenges as to Renfroe’s testing go to the weight of the testimony, not the admissibility, and are properly addressed through cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence at trial. See, e.g., Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., 716 F.2d 833, 844 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Ford also argues that Renfroe’s opinion

A: holding that alleged deficiencies including poor sampling inexperienced interviewers poorly designed questions and other errors in execution affected the weight of a proffered survey and not its admissibility
B: holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility
C: holding statistical conclusions admissible and questions regarding the size of a tests database goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence
D: holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility
A.