The author does not make predictions about what would happen if specific performance or monetary damages become the standard approach. Although the author does indicate that specific performance in cases where it’s not appropriate can lead to certain harmful consequences, this doesn’t constitute a prediction about the consequences of making specific performance a standard approach. In any case, the primary purpose isn’t to make predictions about consequences, it’s to discuss conditions that make specific performance more or less appropriate than monetary damages as a remedy.

The author doesn’t argue for a new set of standards for using specific performance or monetary damages. The author simply discusses conditions under which specific performance is more or less appropriate than monetary damages.

Although the author does describe the difference between monetary damages and specific performance, the primary purpose isn’t to explain this difference. The passage focuses on the conditions under which one kind of remedy is more or less appropriate than the other. This goes beyond mere description of differences.

The author doesn’t discuss how we evaluate evidence.

This best captures the purpose as explained above. The two legal remedies are specific performance and monetary damages. The passage explores conditions that make one kind of remedy more appropriate to apply than the other.