Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1996); Oliven, 849 F.2d at 745. Although the testimony of a damages expert should be excluded as unduly speculative if it is based on "assumptions that are so unrealistic and contradictoiy as to suggest bad faith or to be in essence an apples and oranges comparison," "other contentions that the assumptions are unfounded go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony.” Boucher, 73 F.3d at 22 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Projections of future earnings are admissible where, as here, they are supported by evidence such as wage scales or contracts, and where the juiy is charged with determining the likelihood of the plaintiff’s progress and is given sufficient information to enable it to do so. Oliveri, 849 F.2d at 745 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the Court instructed the jury 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care (B) holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive (C) holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked (D) holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony (E) holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by admitting expert testimony on future compensation rates for marine engineer positions where it was based on a meba union officials testimony regarding promotion the jury was given information to assess the plaintiffs chances of promotion and the juiy was clearly instructed that the testimony was only relevant if they found that the plaintiff would have been promoted
Output (English): holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive