With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". credibility. The court also found that any error was harmless and any prejudice was de minimus. Trial Ct. Op. at 50. Respecting these claims, we are guided predominantly by our standard of review and our understanding that a proper purpose of cross-examination includes attempts to impeach a witness’s credibility. Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 527. It is well-settled that “[w]hatever tends to show the interest or feeling of a witness in a cause is competent by way of cross examination.” Grutski v. Kline, 352 Pa. 401, 43 A.2d 142, 144 (1945) (quoting Commonwealth v. Farrell, 187 Pa. 408, 41 A. 382 (1898)). Of course, the relevant dispute here involves the question of which kinds of facts “show the interest” of a witness. See generally Cooper v. Schoffstall, 588 Pa. 505, 905 A.2d 482, 494 (2006) (<HOLDING>). With regard to an expert witness’s testimony

A: recognizing general proposition that pattern of compensation in past cases raises inference that witness may slant testimony to ensure he is hired in future cases
B: holding and citing cases standing for the proposition that rehabilitation plans may not be based on liquidation
C: holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination
D: holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant
A.