Spinoza, a professional hockey player, sustained serious injuries when a flying puck penetrated the face protector on his helmet.Spinoza decides to bring a products liability suit against his team and the helmet manufacturer alleging that the face mask component of the helmet was defectively designed.In such a case, which proof element (i.e., evidence) would be helpful to Spinoza

a.an alternative face mask design (deemed safer in independent laboratory tests) has been available in the marketplace for several years.

b.the management of Spinoza's team is aware of the safer design but allows players to choose their own preferred (less safe in many cases) helmet.

c.use of the alternative design could have reduced or avoided Spinoza's injury.

d.all of the above.