Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
omitted). The listing for mental retardation sets out four distinct ways to establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05(A)-(D). We focus here on hsting § 12.05(C): “[m]ental retardation refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period: i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22” and “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function.” Mr. Smith correctly argues that the ALJ did not specifically address fisting § 12.05(C). The ALJ cites to the standard for e 214 (10th Cir. 2001) . Mr. Smith believes that the ALJ failed at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding failure to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law did not preclude meaningful appellate review
B. holding meaningful appellate review is impossible where it would require drawing factual conclusions on al js behalf and court would not be reviewing for substantial evidence
C. holding that reviewing courts will review the engineers decision for substantial evidence
D. holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
E. holding it is impossible to apply the substantial evidence test where the alj has failed to sufficiently explain his decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.