The author doesn’t criticize the current approach to bankruptcy. She says only positive things about it.

Although the author does compare how bankruptcy is handled differently today than in the past, the overall purpose isn’t to make this comparison. The author has an opinion about this comparison. She wants to defend the change in the focus of bankruptcy laws. She isn’t merely trying to describe the change.

The author doesn’t criticize people who want to change the laws. She does criticize the old bankruptcy laws and present reasons we shouldn’t go back to those laws, but this doesn’t involve any critique of the people who want to go back to those laws.

The author doesn’t suggest any improvements to modern bankruptcy laws. This isn’t to say that she thinks they’re perfect; but if she doesn’t point out any potential improvements, we can’t say she wrote the passage in order to suggest improvements.

This best captures the author’s purpose. She states that modern bankruptcy laws shouldn’t be abandoned in P1, and supports this view in the rest of the passage.