So we are asked what the author is suggesting about the total probate valuations of the personal property of individuals holding goods for sale in nineteenth-century Britain.
Well, where is the first time we discuss probate records? In the second paragraph.
"We are told that Rubinstein's claim about the location of wealth comes from his investigation of probate records. These indicate the value of personal property, excluding real property, left by individuals at death. (15-19)" But, this second paragraph is about the fact that probate records do not "unequivocally" support Rubenstein's point (23-24). Lines 24-25 state: "Uncertainties abound about how the probate rules for valuing assets were actually applied." It further expounds that mills and factories were not included in the valuations, along with machinery. We are also told that "what the valuation conventions were for stock-in-trade is also uncertain."
Taking into consideration these valuation conventions seems to be so important to the author that she even suggest that businesses should investigate their full effect (39-42).
Thus, it is clear that the probate valuations of the personal property of individuals holding goods for sale in nineteenth-century Britain could have been affected by the valuation conventions for such goods, i.e. answer choice (A).
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
