Supported.

Anti-supported. The author describes this potential difficulty but actually says that this difficulty “seems actually to have deterred few.” The author then goes on to discuss the real reason we have a lack of relevant scholarship.

This isn’t the reason discussed in P2 regarding what’s responsible for the current deficiencies in our knowledge of women’s legal history. Treatises and commentaries were mentioned in P1 in connection with nineteenth and early twentieth scholars. They are not connected in P2 to modern historians and their lack of interest in studying how women were actually affected.

This isn’t the reason discussed in P2 regarding what’s responsible for the current deficiencies in our knowledge of women’s legal history. There’s some discussion of laws that apply only to women in P1, but that part isn’t connected to P2’s description of why there’s a deficiency in our knowledge of women’s history.

This isn’t the reason discussed in P2 regarding what’s responsible for the current deficiencies in our knowledge of women’s legal history. Also, the author notes that there’s a lack of quantitative studies into how women were actually affected by medieval law. These aren’t the same as studies that provide a “comprehensive overview of women’s legal history” (which would include laws both before and after medieval laws). So (E) misdescribes the kind of studies that the author identities as scarce. We’re just concerned with how medieval laws affected women, not a comprehensive overview of women’s legal history.