steps the question posed to the locational expert i talked about simple tasks the question i have is how do we know whether those are the same or was there are any question posed to the vocational expert along the lines of what do you understand by the phrase simple tasks you know there was that it wouldn't really simple after hearing to find out what are the vocational expert took that phrase to be the same thing as tasks with one or two i don't know how many on appeal where that line was  to be the same tasks with only one or two steps there was no difference at all and it would have been so simple it would have been a task with only one step to ask  the default a simple routine repetitive work is insufficient at least without some extra explanation or some additional language which incorporates limitations and concentration that she undergo she has such severe withdraw when she tries to quit smoking becomes literally irritable and given that prevail j she has a severe anxiety and severe depression and she just tell what the vocational expert on there stood by the phrase simple tasks my understanding of the i'm not asking for your understanding asking how we can tell  procreational issues such as that methodology to determine job numbers but i'm not aware of you know taking the position that somehow one to two step tasks meant something some kind of private jargon and that it may not at all be the same as what the psychologist was talking or it may be now if everybody agrees that there was an opportunity to find understood by this phrase and i don't know how we know that unless there is either something in the record or some definition in a regulation or some walk where we could go look at all r i'm not aware of an explicit definition of the term simple i would say out of her with with the substantial evidence and you're and you don't necessarily need to know exactly to affirm the commissioner's decision you simply have to think that it would be reasonable on this record to draw that conclusion even if there is an ambiguity ambiguity or uncertainty on the procedural side of things i do think that the claimant was given or unfair opportunity to about a job where it lists the strength requirements and how much you need to handle those are precise retirements the job whereas the general farm general educational development or simply the in the d o t in the companion publication to g d d levels do not describe thanks i know for for i know that some of the jobs that have reading levels you'd be expected to have like you know have read a thousand sure can you respond to the point the your adversary makes in particular with respect to dr snyder that he had served that the claimant you know as moderate restrictions in concentration and persistent despite those limitations noted earlier and if you look at that first sentence it says the claimants ability to sustain concentration in carry out an eighteen repetitive tasks at one to two steps would be intact so you have a narrative explanation cases has centered if the consultant explains what he or she means in that narrative section then they are taken rely on that as long as it's consistent with the earlier find multiple moderate limitations including limitations with patients are also part of the doctor's opinion and finally it's the commissioner's burden of proof it's that i find pointless a little different than that i thought i thought your point what is it maybe one thing if she can sustain your current concentration in a level you know to perform one or two september but that doesn't mean that she may have the concentration persistence or pace to work at you know an eight hour