Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
found “not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.”) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir.1996)). The ALJ made no specific findings regarding plaintiffs IQ. To meet the “B” criteria of section 12.05, plaintiff must have a valid verbal, performance, or full-scale IQ of 59 or below. Both Dr. Taylor, who administered the WAIS III that yielded a full-scale IQ of 58, and Dr. Soltz, the medical expert, indicated that those IQ test results were invalid due to suboptimal effort or malingering on plaintiffs part. Therefore, plaintiffs contention that he meets the “B” criteria of section 12.05 lacks merit. See Soto v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 219, 222 (1st Cir.1986) . To meet the “C” criteria of section 12.05,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the summoned party may in an enforcement proceeding challenge the  7609f2 determination that there is a reasonable basis for believing there may be a violation of a revenue law
B. holding that the alj erred in rejecting the iq of a claimant whose work history was limited primarily to working for his father
C. holding that the alj is not obliged to accept an iq if there is a substantial basis in the record for believing that the claimant was feigning the results
D. holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history even when the claimant is represented by counsel
E. holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.