This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. In addition, the author never suggests that “outcomes analysis” involves only a limited number of unusual discrimination suits. Rather, it involves counting the number of successful and unsuccessful plaintiffs.

This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. In addition, the author doesn’t suggest that the validity of conclusions becomes more suspect when the number of factors analyzed increases. Rather, the author criticizes “outcomes analysis” because it doesn’t take into account the various factors that may contribute to success or lack of success in discrimination suits.

The main point is about what scholars frequently offer. It’s about how a particular approach supported by two scholars isn’t very useful, and that other approaches are more useful. In addition, the author comments only on Zirkel and Schoenfeld; she doesn’t comment on other scholars who offer flawed approaches. So it’s not supported to say scholars who are critical of traditional legal research “frequently offer” flawed approaches.

This best captures the author’s main point, which is that “outcomes analysis” is not very useful, and two other approaches are more useful.

This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. Also, this is too extreme. The author never suggests that we can predict with “certainty” whether a plaintiff will be successful.