This doesn’t fit, because the author thinks current bankruptcy laws are good. There’s no reason the author would add a claim about today’s laws being seen as inadequate as a requirement for getting back to the original intent.

This is the best answer. In the second-to-last sentence, the author notes that there are certain features of bankruptcy that might serve a punitive function. But it’s still true to say that punishment is no longer the primary goal of bankruptcy law. Instead, as the author tells us in the last sentence, the primary goal is keeping people and businesses economically productive, which gives creditors the best chance of getting money back.

There’s no reason the author would add a sentence about criminal law at the end. Criminal law isn’t brought up in the last paragraph, and we have no reason to think modern bankruptcy laws are related to criminal law in any way.

This doesn’t fit at the end, because we have no reason to think the author wants to consider adding punitive measures to current bankruptcy laws. Although current law does have some aspects that might seem punitive, the author never suggests we should be open to additional laws that are punitive.

This isn’t supported. We have no reason to think creditors bear the main burden of bankruptcy. Sure, the modern laws are less punitive for debtors, but that doesn’t imply creditors now have the primary burden if someone goes bankrupt. The debtors are still affected by bankruptcy and arguably could have the primary burden. Creditors simply benefit from bankruptcy if the debtors can stay in operation and can pay the creditors back.