Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the compressor station would be about [$]100,-000? A. I think so. Q. And that’s due — and then because of the compressor station- being there with the noise and the odors, do you agree with the figures she gave of [$]25,000 being the best that y’all might could get? A. I imagine that would be close to it. This was the Mashburn’s only reference to market value. We conclude that none of this testim ut even his testimony was insufficient. Although he demonstrated his familiarity with area market values, he- failed to explain the factual basis behind his determination that his property suffered a $400,000 decrease in value. His statement that it was “based on property sales around in the area” provides little more detail than using the words “market value.” Cf. Arkoma, 249 S.W.3d at 389 (<HOLDING>). In both' cases, the owners stated a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected (B) holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (C) holding that evidence that the petitioner had a political opinion that he expressed it to his persecutors and that they threatened him only after he expressed his opinion compelled the conclusion that the threats were connected to his political opinion and not only to his failure to provide money in response to demands from the persecutors that predated his expression of his political opinion (D) holding that the affidavit of an expert proffered in opposition to summary judgment motion was assertedly in conflict with the experts prior deposition testimony but the court found that the affidavit could generate genuine issues of material fact because the expert explained the basis for his apparently changed opinion (E) holding that experts cursory testimony did not make his opinion conclusory because accompanying exhibit explained the basis for his conclusion
Output (English): holding that the affidavit of an expert proffered in opposition to summary judgment motion was assertedly in conflict with the experts prior deposition testimony but the court found that the affidavit could generate genuine issues of material fact because the expert explained the basis for his apparently changed opinion