s 15-16 are based on the following fact situation. Paul was injured while operating a drill press manufactured by Manco. Paul properly commenced an action against Manco in the appropriate U.S. District Court. Prior to trial, Paul sought discovery of a report which had been made to Manco by Brown, a claims investigator for Manco. Brown had inspected the machine and investigated the circumstances of the accident immediately thereafter. The machine was subsequently destroyed in a fire and Brown has retired (leaving no forwarding address). In selecting the jury, the judge conducted the voir dire, but refused Manco's request that the judge ask the members of the jury panel whether any of them were prejudiced against corporations. A verdict was returned in favor of Paul for $75,000. Manco moved for a new trial. The trial judge agreed to grant a new trial, unless Paul accepted a reduction in the verdict from $75,000 to $25,000. Paul agreed to the reduction under protest. Paul then appealed. He asserted as error the trial court's order granting a new trial, unless he accepted a reduction in the verdict from $75,000 to $25,000. The trial judge's refusal to comply with Manco's request at the voir dire was: Question 15Select one: a. Correct, because the question was irrelevant to the issues of the case. b. Correct, because Manco could have exercised a peremptory challenge against the potential juror. c. Erroneous, because prejudice against a party is a proper subject for inqu