Not supported, the author never indicates that any source is adequate for the needs of a modern legal historian studying medieval law. Although we know that certain sources were what most nineteenth-century historians of medieval law consulted, that doesn’t indicate adequacy for the needs of modern historians.

Not supported. The author never expresses a judgment about which sources she prefers. She never suggests one kind of source is generally better than another. Although there is support for the belief that some sources are more useful for studying certain subjects, this doesn’t extend to a general preference for some sources over others.

Not supported. The author never suggests the sources are not relevant to the history of modern legal institutions and ideas. Although these sources might not be the best for studying how women were affected by law, that doesn’t imply these sources are not relevant to other subjects.

Supported by the middle and end of P1.

Not supported. The author never expresses a judgment about what is the primary value in these sources. Although these sources might answer some questions concerning how laws were intended to affect women, we don’t know that the author finds primary value in the ability of these sources to answer these questions.