Supported, because we know the systems have been supported by objectivism, which holds that there is a single neutral description of each event.

Not supported, because the author believes there’s “no such thing as the neutral, objective observer.” So even though the intellectual systems assume objectivism, this doesn’t mean that they in fact achieve objectivism.

Not supported, because we have no evidence that scholars haven’t analyzed the discourse of the intellectual systems mentioned. We know that legal scholars have traditionally rejected discourse based on personal stories, but we don’t know that they have rejected or otherwise failed to give attention to other things, such as the discourse of the intellectual systems mentioned.

Not supported, because the intellectual systems are supported by objectivism. The author suggests that objectivism rejects the language of emotion and experience.

Not supported, because the author believes there’s “no such thing as the neutral, objective observer.” So the author would agree that one of the basic tenets of these systems — objectivism — has been confirmed to be accurate.