With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conclusion that the additional oversight “diminished [the companies’] property right to subside.” Murray Br. 29-30. And though it might be, as the companies contend, that regulators would have to “conduct independent reviews and make safety determinations” before mining, the Murray Companies have offered no evidence that regulators would have prohibited mining outright, or would have delayed it for such a period that it would no longer be economically viable. Id. at 30. The opinion of Robert Murray, the companies’ principal, that regulators would have delayed mining for long periods of time, unsupported by specific and tangible facts within his knowledge, fails to move the Murray Companies’ theory beyond speculation. Cf. Masheter v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 175, 305 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1973) (<HOLDING>). The coal companies respond that they cannot

A: holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of requests to change zoning or comprehensive zoning plans
B: holding that an expert witness in a condemnation proceeding may not offer an opinion as to the likelihood of a zoning change because it constitutes speculation
C: holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others
D: holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion
B.