The Supreme Court has explained that "for purposes of preserving error, it is essential to raise the relevant issue at trial, but less important to make a specific argument or identify a specific legal source with respect to the issue raised." State v. Stevens, 328 Ore. 116, 122, 970 P.2d 215 (1998) (summarizing State v. Hitz, 307 Ore. 183, 188, 766 P.2d 373 (1988)). Stevens illustrates the court's application of that rule. In Stevens, the defendant had objected to a witness' testimony on the ground that it was "mere quasi psychiatric or psychological evidence, which is really nothing more than profile evidence." 328 Ore. at 123. He had not told the trial court, however, that the evidence was not admissible as scientific evidence. Id. When the defendant raised the latter objection on appeal, the Supreme Court held that he had not preserved that issue. The court explained that "the trial court was entitled to be told that, in defendant's view, it was committing error by admitting evidence that did not satisfy the legal standards applicable to scientific evidence." Id.