With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". does not extend to the arbitration clause in the agreement between CJS and Lexington. Further, the garnishment statute provides that this issue shall be decided by trial. Iowa Code § 642.11. Where the parties have no agreement otherwise, we find that the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate the garnishment claim. Therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 . The policy was issued to Praj Schneider, ine., which stated it had purchased CJS. 2 . Penford states it "does not agree that Lexington adequately preserved error.” Yet it does not make any other arguments or statements in support of this assertion. This is insufficient to raise the issue for our review. See State v. Mann, 602 N.W.2d 785, 788 n. 1 (Iowa 1999) (citing Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 689 (Iowa 1994)

A: holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue
B: holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review
C: holding that random mention of an issue without elaboration or supporting authority is insufficient to raise issue for appellate courts consideration
D: holding that mere conclusion of affiant without some supporting facts are insufficient to raise fact issue necessary to preclude summary judgment
C.