Reading Comprehension

Why were the contributions of these technicians not recognized by their employers? One reason is the historical tendency, which has persisted into the twentieth century, to view scientific discovery as resulting from momentary flashes of individual insight rather than from extended periods of cooperative work by individuals with varying levels of knowledge and skill. Moreover, despite the clamor of seventeenth-century scientific rhetoric commending a hands-on approach, science was still overwhelmingly an activity of the English upper class, and the traditional contempt that genteel society maintained for manual labor was pervasive and deeply rooted. Finally, all of Boyle's technicians were "servants," which in seventeenth-century usage meant anyone who worked for pay. To seventeenth-century sensibilities, the wage relationship was charged with political significance. Servants, meaning wage earners, were excluded from the franchise because they were perceived as ultimately dependent on their wages and thus controlled by the will of their employers. Technicians remained invisible in the political economy of science for the same reasons that underlay servants' general political exclusion. The technicians' contribution, their observations and judgment, if acknowledged, would not have been perceived in the larger scientific community as objective because the technicians were dependent on the wages paid to them by their employers. Servants might have made the apparatus work, but their contributions to the making of scientific knowledge were largely-and conveniently-ignored by their employers.

The question is:
According to the author, servants of seventeenth-century England were excluded from the franchised because of the belief that

(A) their interests were adequately represented by their employers

(B) their education was inadequate to make informed political decisions

(C) the independence of their political judgment would be compromised by their economic dependence on their employers

(D) their participation in the elections would be a polarizing influence on the political process

(E) the manual labor that they performed did not constitute a contribution to the society that was sufficient to justify their participation in elections


Experts, please explain every option.

Thanks.