At its 1928 convention, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) boasted of approximately 165,000 members working five-day, 40-hour weeks. But although this represented an increase of about 75,000 since 1926, about 70 percent of the total came from five extremely well-organized building trades’ unions.
It can be inferred that the author of the passage would probably agree with which of the following claims about the boast referred to in lines 12–13?
AIt is based on a mistaken estimation of the number of AFL workers who were allowed to work a five-day, 40-hour week in 1928.
BIt could create a mistaken impression regarding the number of unions obtaining a five-day, 40-hour week during the 1920s.
CIt exaggerates the extent of the increase between 1926 and 1928 in AFL members working a five-day, 40-hour week.
DIt overestimates the bargaining prowess of the AFL building trades’ unions during the 1920s.
EIt is based on an overestimation of the number of union members in the AFL in 1928.
1926年到1928年增長了75000個人，但是這75000個人中的70%都是來自well－organized的unions，所以我們并不能說increase the extent。因為除了一些管理良好的聯盟，還有另外管理不好的企業。如果增長量的大多數都只來自管理良好的5個聯盟，并不能說明增長量是所有機構共同作用的結果。因為只有30%的增長量是除開5個聯盟之外剩余組織的作用，可以推測，剩余組織占據所有組織的大部分，因而并不能說明整個范圍組織中的增長量都增加了。
我們可以以這個例子來類比一下：全國人均收入從100元上升到1000元，說明所有人民的
