With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court’s order de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm. The A adverse credibility determination: the objective medical evidence was inconsistent with Willens’s subjective allegations of limitation. For example, although Wil-lens testified that he experienced regularly-recurring chest pains, Dr. Sibley stated in a July 2012 report that Willens had been asymptomatic since April 2012. Second, although Willens testified that his neck pain was disabling, Dr. Sibley reported on February 20, 2012 that Willens had undergone cervical fusion and had improvement in his neck pain. Moreover, in the medical evidence before the ALJ, no physician made an assessment that Willens was disabled. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). The ALJ did not err in giving little weight

A: holding that an alj may consider a lack of supporting medical evidence but the factor cannot form the only basis for discounting subjective symptom testimony
B: holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations
C: holding that lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony but is a factor that an alj may consider
D: holding that a failure to corroborate ones testimony with supporting evidence cannot form the sole basis for an adverse credibility determination
A.