Marriages did begin to incorporate contractual features in the late 17th and 18th centuries. The historians think that these features were a gain for women, but the main idea of the passage is a criticism of the historians’ perspective. The author uses Staves’ perspective to argue that the contractual features did not actually protect women’s rights in practice.

Unsupported. Staves doesn’t say that the historians incorrectly identified the contractual features of marriages. Instead, she argues that they're wrong to say that these features benefited women, since judicial decisions undermined any gains from marriage contracts.

The main idea of the passage is to criticize the historians’ perspective that the contractual features of marriages represented a gain for women. The author uses Staves’ perspective to undermine the historians’ view and show that these features did not represent a significant gain for women.

Unsupported. Staves never suggests that marriages did not incorporate contractual features. She just argues that these features— whether they were intended to protect women’s property rights or not— did not actually represent a gain for women.

Unsupported— too strong. The author never says that women couldn’t gain any financial power before marriages incorporated contractual features. Instead, he uses Staves’ perspective to argue that the contractual features did not actually represent a gain for women.