With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by counsel, the ALJ adjudged Greathouse “not disabled” because, according to the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), there are a significant number of jobs in Illinois that Greathouse could perform despite the physical limitations engendered by his injured back and the mental limitations caused by his depression and alcoholism. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A),(B) (claimant “not disabled” if he or she can perform work that exists in national economy). The Administration’s Appeals Counsel denied Greathouse’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision, terminating the Administration’s decision-making process. Great-house sought review in the district court, but a magistrate judge-to whose jurisdiction Greathouse and the Commissioner of Social Security consented (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, the ALJ queried the VE whether there

A: holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review
B: holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made
C: holding that exaggeration of pain versus treatment sought was substantial evidence for the aljs credibility determination
D: holding that ves unchallenged testimony was substantial evidence supporting aljs decision
D.