With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Inadequate Framing of the Issues Before we consider the substantive claims, we state our concern with Ms. Eacret’s failure properly to frame the issues presented on appeal. The single “issue” presented for our review is, instead, a blend of several claimed errors. The ar gument suffers from a similar lack of organization and specificity, combining various claims of error and their respective standards of review. Consequently, we are left to comb through the briefs and the record to ascertain not only what Ms. Eacret is arguing, but whether the agency committed any error. This is a dangerous practice, because we are not required to speculate on what a party is arguing or to craft her arguments for her. Threet v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 1185, 1190 (10th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1141 n. 13

A: holding that the appellant developed his argument sufficiently to raise the issue for appellate review
B: holding aljs listing of factors he considered was inadequate when court was left to speculate what specific evidence led the alj to his conclusion
C: holding that the appellant waived this argument
D: holding appellate argument insufficiently developed declining to speculate on what evidence appellant claimed was ignored
D.