With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it appears that the Commissioner has repeatedly been using this same boilerplate paragraph to reject the testimony of numerous claimants, without linking the conclusory statements contained therein to evidence in the record or even tailoring the paragraph to the facts at hand, almost without regard to whether the boilerplate paragraph has any relevance to the case. See, e.g., Angel, 329 F.3d at 1213; Oslin v. Barnhart, 69 Fed.Appx. 942, 947-48 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished disposition); Clark v. Barnhart, 64 Fed. Appx. 688, 691 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished disposition). As is the risk with boilerplate language, we are unable to determine in this case the specific evidence that led the ALJ to reject claimant’s testimony. See, e.g., Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, we cannot find rec ord support for

A: holding that we must uphold any of the aljs factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence and we owe substantial deference to inferences drawn from these facts
B: holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make
C: 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
D: holding that the alj is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion
C.