Baker, Charlie, and Damon worked together as coders for Gaggle, a technology company. One evening, they drove together in Charlie's car to see a San Jose Sharks hockey game. On their way to the game, Charlie was involved in an auto accident with a vehicle driven by Able. Baker, who had been sitting in the backseat, was seriously injured in the collision when his head slammed into the back of the driver's seat. Baker sued Charlie for personal injuries, claiming that Charlie was negligent in his operation of the motor vehicle. In his answer, Charlie alleged that Baker was contributorily negligent by failing to wear his seat belt. At trial, in the defense's case-in-chief, Charlie called Damon to testify that Baker was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident. In his rebuttal case, Baker calls Edward, a fellow coder at Gaggle, to testify that he has been riding to work with Baker for the last nine months and that Baker always wears his seat belt whenever they are in the car together. Edward's testimony is: Question 42 options: a) admissible as evidence that Baker was wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident. b) inadmissible as evidence showing action in conformity with a propensity on a particular occasion. c) inadmissible, because Edwards was not present during the incident. d) inadmissible, because the probative value of prior happenings is outweighed by the time consumed, the confusion of the issues, and the possible misleading