无标题文章

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年增长了75000个人，但是这75000个人中的70%都是来自well－organized的unions，所以我们并不能说increase the extent。因为除了一些管理良好的联盟，还有另外管理不好的企业。如果增长量的大多数都只来自管理良好的5个联盟，并不能说明增长量是所有机构共同作用的结果。因为只有30%的增长量是除开5个联盟之外剩余组织的作用，可以推测，剩余组织占据所有组织的大部分，因而并不能说明整个范围组织中的增长量都增加了。

我们可以以这个例子来类比一下：全国人均收入从100元上升到1000元，说明所有人民的