With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2012) (“Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). Sadeeq next contends that the ALJ erred by discounting his testimony and the written testimony of his wife regarding the debilitating effect of his heart condition and leg pain. The ALJ provided specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount Sadeeq’s testimony and the written statements of Sadeeq’s wife regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of Sadeeq’s symptoms. First, the ALJ properly found that Sa-deeq’s assertion of debilitating limitations was undermined by the medical evidence. See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 670-71 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Second, the ALJ was permitted to consider

A: holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations
B: holding that alj properly evaluated credibility where he cited specific instances where claimants complaints about pain and other subjective symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record
C: holding that evidence relied on by alj was insufficient to undermine pain allegations where medical records were replete with claimants reports of pain and of prescriptions
D: holding that the alj properly discounted a claimants testimony about the extent of his pain and limitations based on his ability to travel
A.