With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". including an error in converting sales in Euros in a way that undervalued the United States sales. See Memo in Support (Anson) at 14. We conclude that these miscalculations would in the ordinary case go to weight and not admissibility. But we note that the traditional means of addressing such errors, i.e., cross-examining the expert at trial, would not work in this case because, for reasons stated above, Louis Vuitton has produced the wrong expert to testify on the regression analysis. Indeed, this is another reason why Torres and not Anson should have been produced — otherwise errors in computation that traditionally go to weight should probably be treated as going to admissibility. Given the many other reasons for excluding Anson's testimony as to the regression analysis Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d

A: holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment
B: holding that when plaintiffs allege classwide racially discriminatory treatment in violation of title vii proof of discriminatory motive is essential although the burden may be met in some situations by presentation of statistical evidence that permits an inference of racial discrimination
C: holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied
D: holding that plaintiffs statistical analysis failed oh its own to support an inference of discriminatory treatment sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion because the analysis did not account for any other causes for the fact that older workers were more likely to be terminated
D.