With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 483 S.W.2d 244, 247 (Tex.1972) (setting forth definition of fair market value). 24 . If AHC's single Sale — five years after the fire — of 1,330 stage-three smoky hats to Outback Traders can somehow be construed as establishing a market for all of AHC’s remaining 17,140 completed, stage-three smoke-damaged hats, the trial court’s judgment could be modified by lowering AHC’s inventory damage award by $1,139,351.23. This figure is computed as follows: by taking the total value of all stage-three smoke-damaged hats — $1,188,539,54, and subtracting the credit already given to Wise Electric to exclude the 1,330 smoky hats sold to Outback Traders from'■ AHC’s inventory damage award — $49,188.31, the total equals $1,139,351.23. 25 . For these same reasons, we reject Wi 2d 72, 76 (Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>). 27 . Wise Electric does not challenge

A: holding that error if any in excluding portion of defendants statement to police was harmless because similar evidence was admitted through the testimony of another witness
B: holding any error in admitting testimony of witness describing chemical pump was harmless because it was cumulative of admit  ted exhibit displaying pump and trial testimony of other witness about pumps function
C: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
D: holding any error in admitting eye witness testimony was harmless because it was cumulative to other overwhelming evidence that established defendants guilt
B.