With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to preserve error. See id.; Clausen v. R.W. Gilbert Constr. Co., 309 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Iowa 1981). Such a challenge does nothing to inform a trial judge how particular instructions were confusing, or were unfairly defense-oriented,- or improperly placed on the plaintiff impossible burdens of proof. A. Whether instruction nine improperly incorporates allocation of burdens of production under McDonnell Douglas. Sievers objected to instruction nine on two grounds, both of which she raises- on appeal. She first complains instruction nine improperly incorporates the shifting burdens of production under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). She relies on Grebin v. Sioux Falls Independent School District, 779 F.2d 18, 20 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Recently, we described the elements of a

A: holding that a plaintiff who could not demonstrate every element of the mcdonnell douglas test could nonetheless demonstrate a prima facie case
B: holding that although a jury instruction that included the phrase prima facie case and referred to defendants burden of production created a distinct risk of confusing the jury in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case
C: holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss
D: holding that in jury cases trial courts should not incorporate in instructions the threepart mcdonnell analysis of prima facie case answer and rebuttal
D.