According to the author, the notion that computers

单项选择题

It may turn out that the "digital divide"--one of the most fashionable political slogans of recent years--is largely fiction. As you will recall, the argument went well beyond the unsurprising notion that the rich would own more computers than the poor. The disturbing part of the theory was that society was dividing itself into groups of technology "haves" and "have-nots" and that this segregation would, in turn, worsen already large economic inequalities. It is this argument that is either untrue or wildly exaggerated.
We should always have been suspicious. After all, computers have spread quickly because they have become cheaper to buy and easier to use. Falling prices and skill requirements suggest that the digital divide would spontaneously shrink--and so it has.
Now, a new study further discredits the digital divide. The study, by economist David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, challenges the notion that computers have significantly worsened wage inequality. The logic of how this supposedly happens is straightforward: computers raise the demand for high-skilled workers, increasing their wages. Meanwhile, computerization--by automating many routine tasks--reduces the demand for low-skilled workers and, thereby, their wages. The gap between the two widens.
Superficially, wage statistics support the theory. Consider the ratio between workers near the top of the wage distribution and those near the bottom. Computerization increased; so did the wage gap.
But wait, point out Card and DiNardo. The trouble with blaming computers is that the worsening of inequality occurred primarily in the early 1980s. With computer use growing, the wage gap should have continued to expand, if it was being driven by a shifting demand for skills. Indeed, Card and DiNardo find much detailed evidence that contradicts the theory. They conclude that computerization does not explain "the rise in U.S. wage inequality in the last quarter of the 20th century."
The popular perception of computers’ impact on wages is hugely overblown. Lots of other influences count for as much, or more. The worsening of wage inequality in the early 1980s, for example, almost certainly reflected the deep 1981--1982 recession and the fall of inflation. Companies found it harder to raise prices. To survive, they concluded that they had to hold down the wages of their least skilled, least mobile and youngest workers.
The "digital divide" suggested a simple solution (computers) for a complex problem (poverty). With more computer access, the poor could escape their lot. But computers never were the source of anyone’s poverty and, as for escaping, what people do for themselves matters more than what technology can do for them.

According to the author, the notion that computers are to blame for the wage gap is

A．quite insightful.
B．very contradictory.
C．rather shallow.
D．fairly illuminating.