- Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:22 pm
#41931
The author describes Rubenstein's analysis of probate records in a number of different ways: provocative, deserving of consideration, not unequivocally convincing, uncertain, worth investigating, partially convincing. In the end, the author concludes that Rubenstein's analysis of the records need to be investigated further before they are confirmed.
From these statements, I prephrased "problematic, but possibly valuable if we investigate further."
Answer choice (D) states that the records are revealing. The author would agree with this since she does believe that they give us some insights, as stated around lines 15 - 20 concerning the location of wealth. This answer also describes the records as difficult to interpret, which was discussed in lines 23 - 42.
Answer choice (A) is unambiguously negative. It claims that the author thought the probate records were worse than worthless.
Answer choice (B) may be accurate in describing the records as ambiguous, but there is no support for outdated. In fact, the author implies that we should investigate the records further.
Answer choice (C) states that the records are readily available, which we have no proof of.
Answer choice (E) states that the records are widely used by historians. However, we only have proof that Rubenstein and has so far used them