As far as I am concerned, a good "Status Quaestionis" chapter is essential in any major study. What you describe, however, is not a "Current State of Research" but a glorified bibliography. What is the difference? An analysis of the current state of research examines trends and shifts in research questions, methodologies, theoretical frameworks and the like, and identifies past biases - personal, political, ideological - and their impact on previous research.
This is important because it is impossible to divorce data from the theoretical and methodological frameworks through which they were and are presented. This is true even of the most mundane facts. For example, it is widely accepted that in the mystery cult of Mithras, December 25 was an important feast day. Most scholars repeating that datum appear to be unaware of the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for this. That may seem a minor detail, easily cleared up, but if one pursues the question _why_ the error arose in the first place, it soon becomes apparent that it is not an isolated slip of the pen. It is one of the many problematic legacies of a very particular understanding of the dynamics of religious change in the Roman Empire.
A good "Current state" gives you the background you need to recognize the potential implications of such an error, But that is just one example.
saLamat sa points, pa brainlest nlng
becouse we she is may anwer is 100000 million is but 10 to 12 7 is used does a study reflex the tone