The beginning is wrong. P1 doesn’t start by describing what’s necessary for a particular kind of study. It starts by describing a problem. In addition, a description of reasons for why certain things haven’t been done doesn’t begin until P2.

The second part of (B) is wrong. After the problem is described, the author tells us about the sources that are available and how they are inadequate. This doesn’t involve a listing of different questions relevant to solving the problem of a lack of sources. Don’t get confused by the phrase “these latter questions can be answered” in the middle of P1, or references to questions at the end of P1 – these uses of “questions” don’t relate to questions relevant to solving the problem of a lack of sources. They relate to specific questions related to women and law. (B) is also wrong when it asserts that P1 involves an evaluation of which question is most useful to answer. The author does not single out a particular question as most useful in P1.

There’s no prediction about the future made in P1. This is an easy, clear reason to eliminate (C).

This best captures the organization of P1. A deficiency is described – there’s a lack of sources for studying how women were affected. The specific nature of the deficiency is discussed — we’re told why the sources available do not provide insight into issues related to women’s actual experience of law and the legal system. A particular kind of remedy is asserted to be the only means of correcting the problem – “only quantitative studies of large numbers of cases would allow even a guess at the answers to these questions.”

The beginning is wrong. P1 doesn’t start by describing what’s necessary for a particular task. It starts by describing a problem.