Park sued Davis Co. for injuries suffered in the crash of Park's dune buggy, allegedly caused by a defective auto part manufactured by Davis Co. Davis Co. claims that the part was a fraudulent imitation, not produced by Davis Co. Which of the following is NOT admissible on the issue of whether the part was manufactured by Davis Co.? 
The fact that the defective part bears Davis Co.'s insignia or trademark. Testimony that the part was purchased from a parts house to which Davis Co. regularly sold parts. The part itself and a concededly genuine part manufactured by Davis Co. (for the jury's comparison). A judgment for another plaintiff against Davis Co. in another case involving substantially similar facts.
Question: Park sued Davis Co. for injuries suffered in the crash of Park's dune buggy, allegedly caused by a defective auto part manufactured by Davis Co. Davis Co. claims that the part was a fraudulent imitation, not produced by Davis Co. Which of the following is NOT admissible on the issue of whether the part was manufactured by Davis Co.? 
A. The fact that the defective part bears Davis Co.'s insignia or trademark.
B. Testimony that the part was purchased from a parts house to which Davis Co. regularly sold parts.
C. The part itself and a concededly genuine part manufactured by Davis Co. (for the jury's comparison).
D. A judgment for another plaintiff against Davis Co. in another case involving substantially similar facts.
Answer: