This is the best answer. The author brings up traditional legal research to give context for the rest of the passage. Traditional legal research doesn’t use social science tools for analysis. In contrast, the techniques discussed in the rest of the passage use social science tools. The author is trying to help us understand how the techniques discussed in the rest of the passage are different from traditional research.

If you consider Zirkel and Schoenfeld the opponents, the discussion of traditional legal research doesn’t summarize their position. Their position involves support for “outcomes analysis.” If you don’t consider Zirkel and Schoenfeld the opponents, then there are no opponents.

The author supports the use of social science tools to analyze sex discrimination cases. She takes issue with one particular technique, but finds other techniques that use social science tools more useful.

The author doesn’t suggest that legal researchers harm plaintiffs. Traditional legal research might not be as helpful as it could be, but that doesn’t imply it harms plaintiffs.

The purpose of discussing traditional legal research isn’t to encourage traditional legal researchers to use social science tools or to make them more comfortable with it. We have no evidence the author wants to encourage traditional legal researchers to incorporate social science tools. Even if the author finds social science analysis useful to plaintiffs, this doesn’t imply the author wants traditional legal researchers to change their own approaches.