Anti-supported. The author calls Drescher’s view an “idealization,” which suggests she thinks Drescher was being overly positive, rather than accurate, about British traditions of liberty.

Supported. We get a hint of the author’s view on this when she calls Drescher’s view an “idealization.” The author must think Drescher was being excessively positive, and so not entirely realistic, about British traditions of liberty.

Slightly anti-supported. The only commentary the author gives on the quality of Drescher’s research is that he fails to explain how abolition gained such widespread support across class boundaries. If anything, the author seems to think that Drescher’s research isn’t good enough.

Anti-supported. The author calls Drescher’s view an “idealization,” which suggests she thinks Drescher was being excessively positive—i.e., not reserved or tentative enough—in how he presents British traditions of liberty.

Unsupported. For this to be right, the author would have to suggest that Drescher’s explanation looks good at first glance. But she doesn’t suggest that. She simply lays out Drescher’s argument, notes that it fails to answer a key question, and then calls his view an “idealization, meaning she thinks Drescher was being overly positive about British traditions of liberty.