contradiction for example her discussion of why he wasn't active what the army is the student federation for sixteen years is alleged lack of ability to describe his medical condition his alleged inability to describe political activities that he was involved in and the statement that he quote didn't really spend much time talking about going door to door for the federation thought fall into the category of just generalized statements and the rest of the edges reasons for finding mr ted not in the record as we stand in our opening brief and i won't go through them unless the court wants me to go through any particular one when you carefully review the record not no reasonable fact finder could find that any of these are actual inconsisten practice of this court to go through a list of inconsistency the discrepancies offered by an i j or by the board and determine whether any of those is a major inconsistency that goes to the heart of the clinic if none of them are then the a of the board done what the government did in its brief at least an issue would be before the court because it hasn't because they didn't it's not before the court moreover even assuming that the i g explicitly relied on conditions it wasn't a specific and cogent reason for doing so and beyond that to the extent that it was a specific intelligence on the i j so it is that country conditions evidence shows that time activities and police raids have been greatly reduced in india well if they have been greatly reduced there's nothing inconsistent with mr tenet saying that he was involved in protocol it's not activity and that he had problems with the police a final reason to reject the government's argument about country going to is that under this court's decision and shot which we started in our reply brief it's improper to use that generalized statement a country profile to find somebody not credible as to their description of actual past persecution that they suffered that's exactly what the government wants the court to attempts to justify that by pointing to a statement in a country profile got the alleged high level of misrepresentation and seek asylum cases first of all that's not before the court because the i j a and the board never relied on it moreover it was just it would create an unworkable standard where different credibility standards are different people from different countries and there's no there's no basis for doing that i that really the whole discussion of country conditions is more of an attempt to divert the court from what what the i g really found in this case and if you look at the i j a really found in this case the only conclusion you can come to  you may be able to disagree with one or two or perhaps more of these inconsistencies and say well i really don't think that's inconsistent i think that you can find either way on that that's not the question under substantial evidence standard you have to determine that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find the different conclusion not just that you simply can see two different answers for two different scenarios for a particular inconsistency or contradiction that's been raised the state department reports are important part of this case i have trouble with that part of the government's argument because of the ship  of report directly states that there are absolutely no reports of any beatings and any time after one thousand nine hundred three that would be a reliable contradiction between that lack of page one could be for the record lack of knowledge about political events is evidence that the applicant is not politically active and they call into question his credibility the judge was reasonably relying on that state depart ascertaining whether or not mr thin had any knowledge about the political events about which was part of this caused in making a pro calloused and state as i said he didn't wasn't aware of it seemed it raised suspicion in the immigration judges mind especially when after the second beating which the petitioner described is even more severe he says the doctor merely tells him as far as the diagnosis your bones are weak and that's why you couldn't walk or write for three weeks the judge reasonably looked at this and observed this testimony determined that that seemed knowledge of political activity the goals of this party the reasons that it arose but you know this is a good example of the ideas are still and she talks about the fact that he wasn't aware of a significant event that happened to him a car bomb on member said he was treated doesn't that doesn't provide the kind of inconsistency that the court requires to find someone not credible