PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is 
admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt. admissible to impeach Davidson. inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.  inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
Question: PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. Witt's testimony is 
A. admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt.
B. admissible to impeach Davidson.
C. inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. 
D. inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
Answer: