With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness. Id. (Emphasis added.) As this Court and the Florida Supreme Court have each recognized, “the genuineness of the explanation is the yardstick with which the trial court will determine whether or not the proffered reason is pretextual.” Hayes v. State, 94 So.3d 452, 462 (Fla.2012) (quoting Davis v. State, 691 So.2d 1180, 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). The genuineness of the explanation is subjective and credibility-based, and simply put, requires the trial court to determine, based upon a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the strike, whether it believes that the proffered explanation is truly the reason for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. See Young v. State, 744 So.2d 1077, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>) Thus, the trial court in this case erred in

A: holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services
B: holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence
C: recognizing that identifying the true nature of an attorneys motive behind a peremptory strike turns primarily on an assessment of the attorneys credibility
D: recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs
C.