Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the VE. See Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530, 532 (10th Cir.1995) (concluding there was error when ALJ omitted from hypothetical functional limitations arising from impairment). Even if the ALJ could be faulted for not including standing and walking in the hypothetical, any error was harmless in light of the ALJ’s unchallenged finding that Williams can perform a full range of light work. And the VE understood that Williams had an RFC to perform the full range of light work. Further, no medical evidence suggests Williams’ ability to walk or stand was limited. Lastly, we reject Williams’ contention that reversal is necessary because the ALJ allegedly failed to ask the VE whether the VE’s testimony can be reconciled with the DOT. See Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1175-76 (10th Cir.2005) . Because Williams does not contend that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding court could infer from lack of detail in testimony and lack of corroboration that party made not much if any effort to obtain a lawyer despite partys testimony that she made numerous calls and could not obtain one
B. holding that prosecutor cannot obtain conviction with the aid of false testimony where the prosecutor knows such testimony is false
C. holding that alj must ask ve how ves testimony corresponds with dot and obtain reasonable explanation for any conflicts between testimony and dot
D. holding that plaintiffs own testimony and hearsay testimony constituted weak and insubstantial evidence
E. holding that when an alj improperly rejects a claimants testimony regarding his limitations and the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were credited the testimony must be credited as a matter of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.