Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks for the author's overall assessment of the women reformers. A well-written historical analysis often avoids simple praise or condemnation, instead offering a nuanced judgment that acknowledges both strengths and weaknesses.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage is critical of the reformers, but it's unlikely to portray them as simply villainous. It presents their "oversight." This implies they had good intentions but a flawed understanding. The author's position is likely to reflect this complexity.
\[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{(A) and (D) describe specific actions but may not represent the author's overall summary assertion.} \\ \bullet & \text{(B) It's more likely they underestimated the necessity of child labor, not its prevalence.} \\ \bullet & \text{(C) This statement is perfectly balanced and nuanced. It gives the reformers credit for their moral position ("correct in their conviction that child labor was deplorable") while also identifying their critical flaw ("but shortsighted about the impact"). This captures the essence of the "oversight" that is the passage's central theme.} \\ \bullet & \text{(E) This brings in the issue of suffrage (disenfranchisement), which might be historically relevant but is not suggested as the main focus by the other questions. The focus is on class conflict, not gender-based legal status.} \\ \end{array}\]
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's assertion is a balanced critique: the reformers' goals were noble, but their strategy was flawed because they failed to consider the unintended consequences of their proposed legislation on the families they meant to help.
