Read the following passage:
When compiling the centenary chronicle of the Silverton Loom Works, I felt it my civic duty to present a history unburdened by the sensationalized accounts of contemporary union agitators. The archival materials—most of which I have personally curated and, for the sake of spatial efficiency, stored in the restricted vault of the municipal library—paint a picture of mutual prosperity. The workers, far from being the oppressed souls described in the radical pamphlets of 1912, participated in a paternalistic ecosystem that provided housing, medical stipends, and even weekly band concerts. To suggest, as recent revisionist historians have, that the three-week strike of October 1912 was born of genuine systemic neglect is to misinterpret the historical document. The ledger books clearly record that production levels remained steady throughout that autumn, and wages were paid in full to those who remained loyal to the company. While it is true that the mortality records from the company clinic for that year are currently missing, one must assume this is due to clerical oversight rather than anything more sinister. A family-run enterprise like Silverton, which laid the very foundations of our town, would hardly have prospered had it not been anchored in the goodwill of its workforce.
Based on the passage, which of the following actions or statements by the narrator most clearly undermines his claim to be presenting an objective history?
- AHis assertion that the workers were provided with housing, medical stipends, and weekly band concerts
- BHis claim that union agitators were responsible for compiling the municipal library archives
- His decision to restrict access to historical files and his casual dismissal of missing worker mortality recordsCevap
- DHis conclusion that revisionist historians were hired by company owners to write pamphlets