With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rules of Evidence. His critiques of Kumho Tire are thus especially persuasive. 51 . Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 52 . Id. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (internal citations omitted). 53 . Widmyer v. Southeast Skyways, Inc., 584 P.2d 1, 8 (Alaska 1978). 54 . Coon, 974 P.2d at 390, 391, 394-96. 55 . See, e.g., Mogck, supra n. 50, at 321. 56 . Id. at 322 (quoting Marilee M. Kaspa & Carl B. Meyer, Scientific Experts: Making Their Testimony More Reliable, 35 Cal W.L.Rev. 313, 319 (1999)). 57 . Stephen A. Saltzburg, Questioning the Judicial Role in Dealing With Expert Testimony in Complex and Non-Complex Cases, 3 Sedona Conf. J. 185, 185 (2002). 58 . Mogck, supra n. 50, at 315-18 (internal citations omitted). 59 . See Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470, 1 P.3d 113, 125-30 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Gilkey v. Schweitzer, 295 Mont. 345, 983 P.2d

A: holding that the result reached in kumho  would seem directly opposed to the principle of liberalized admissibility that engendered the abolition of frye and approaches a reduction or obliteration of the jury function
B: holding that frye was inapplicable when evidence is in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments
C: holding that a trial judge cannot usurp the function of the jury as triers of fact if the amount awarded by their verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and is reached by a fair and impartial jury
D: holding that the frye test and the federal rules can coexist
A.