Reading comp PrepTest 151 · Section 1 · Question 2

Passage

Questions 1-6  .       The United States Supreme Court's 1948 ruling in  . Shelley v. Kraemer famously disallowed state courts  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Although Shelley is famous and celebrated, the legal rationale in the decision is problematic
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "racially restrictive covenant":
      • Property agreements that specify that only members of a certain race can occupy that property (second sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship:
      • The Court's decision in Shelley disallowed a key instrument of housing discrimination (third sentence)
    • Author attitude: "famously disallowed" (first sentence); "justly celebrated" (third sentence); "problematic" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • The Court's "attribution" rationale in Shelley
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "Fourteenth Amendment":
      • Grants equal protection to all citizens (first sentence)
    • Comparison:
      • Fourteenth Amendment applies to state actions, but not private, individual actions (second sentence)
    • Definition of "attribution rationale":
      • The Fourteenth Amendment applies to private housing agreements because the Court might have to eventually enforce these agreements, and the Court is an instrument of the state (fifth sentence)
      • The Court can, therefore, only enforce agreements that could have been passed into law under the Constitution (sixth sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: The "attribution" rationale could dissolve the distinction between state and private action
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison:
      • Fourteenth Amendment limitations apply to state action, but not private activities (first sentence)
    • Example of courts not following Shelley's "attribution" rationale:
      • Settlement agreements can prevent parties from speaking publicly, even though this would be an unconstitutional violation of free speech (last sentence)
    • Author attitude: "threatened to dissolve the distinction" (first sentence); "Primarily for this reason" (third sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: The most troubling part of Shelley was it concluded that racially restrictive covenants were legal
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The real issue with racially restrictive covenants is their discriminatory content, not the courts' enforcement of them (last sentence)
    • Author attitude: "particularly noxious" (first sentence); "failed to target the genuine problem" (last sentence); "troubling" (last sentence)

Main Point: Although Shelley's ruling on racially restrictive covenants was momentous, the Court's stated legal rationale doesn't withstand scrutiny or address the real problem with such agreements.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S3) - The Court's decision

P1, S4 - The author's main point

P2, S5 - The Court's "attribution" rationale

P3, S1 - The author's main issue with the "attribution" rationale

P4, S2 - The author's other issue with the rationale

Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: We think this passage applies the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure*. The author dedicates much of this passage to lambasting the Supreme Court's legal rationale in Shelley v. Kraemer. Even though the author approves of the outcome of the Court's decision, the author does not believe the "attribution" rationale the Court employed can withstand scrutiny (P3, S2-3). Moreover, the author chides the Court for not addressing the actual problem Shelley invoked (P4, S2).

In a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage, the main point is generally the author's main criticism or a summary of the criticisms. Unfortunately, the author did not summarize the main point in one tidy sentence. So, we took the liberty to condense their objections: "Although Shelley's ruling on racially restrictive covenants was momentous, the Court's stated legal rationale doesn't withstand scrutiny or address the real problem with such agreements." 

*Some may argue that this is a Correcting the Record or Rebutting Critics, Meta-Structure — understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure. If you went with either of these, that's OK! You'd wind up with the same main point and big-picture understanding of the passage described above. Some may even see this as a Paradox/Resolution passage — how could the author both celebrate Shelley for overturning an instrument of racism in housing contracts while criticizing the legal rationale in the case as problematic? Again, using this framework would help you come to the same understanding of the passage we did. Let's remember that the Meta-Structures are here to help us think about the overarching structure and ideas in a passage. We don't have to agree on which Meta-Structure a passage has to realize the benefits of the Meta-Structures.

Last Thoughts?

Legal passages don't require us to have background legal knowledge. After all, you'll go to law school after taking the LSAT. However, if you don't have background legal knowledge, it's imperative that you pause and absorb any legal term or concept that the passage defines. We recommend highlighting these legal terms to ensure that you give these terms adequate attention and to help you refer back to the definitions when necessary.

In this passage, absorbing the definitions of three legal concepts is paramount to understanding the logic of the Shelley case and its problems. First, the author defines "racially restrictive covenants" in the first paragraph. Knowing the self-evidently racist nature of such covenants can help us understand why the author can praise Shelley's outcome while still finding fault in the Court's legal rationale. In the second paragraph, we are told that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which the Court relied upon in making its problematic decision, grants equal protection to all citizens but only applies to government actions. Finally, the author defines the "attribution" rationale in the third paragraph, which the Court used to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to contracts made between private citizens.

If you had trouble following this passage, consider whether you didn't gain an adequate understanding of any one of these legal terms.

Question prompt

An answer to which Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph in which the expression is found, including the expression in question, then use the purpose and the immediate context to define the expression's meaning

Answer Anticipation

This question is an interesting variation of the Meaning in Context question. At its heart, this question asks us to define the meaning of the phrase "state action" from the second paragraph. Like all Meaning in Context questions, we have to first identify the meaning of that phrase as it's used in the passage. However, in a typical Meaning in Context question, the correct answer would simply provide the appropriate definition of "state action." By contrast, the correct answer to this question will present a question that will allow us to determine whether a hypothetical action could be classified as a "state action."So, what does "state action" refer to in the second paragraph? That part of the passage distinguishes "private action" and "state action." We're told that private action can take the form of private contracts between individuals (P2, S2-4). By contrast, it would appear that "state action" must involve some agent of the "state." The author suggests as much in the second and third paragraphs. Based on the Court's "attribution rationale," if a court enforces a contract, it can be considered a state action because the court is acting on behalf of the government (P2, S5-6). Later, the author criticizes the Court's attribution rationale by pointing out that courts "routinely" ignore the "attribution" rationale's logic that a court enforcing a private agreement involves state action (P3, S2-3). The author says courts "enforce contracts whose substantive provisions could not have been constitutionally enacted by the government" (P3, S2-4). So, we can infer that "state action" refers to "government action." So the question could say, "did the government perform this action" or something to that effect.

Answer choices

  1. A
    What range of people Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) We are looking for an answer choice that asks whether the government performed the action. Does this answer choice address that issue?

    No. State action is not about who is affected by the action, but instead, who is doing the acting.

  2. B
    To what agent can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) We are looking for an answer choice that asks whether the government performed the action. Does this answer choice address that issue?

    It certainly does! Asking to which "agent" the "performance of the action" can "be ascribed" is just a long-winded way of asking who performed the action. The answer to this question would tell us whether the hypothetical action was a "state action." If the answer is "the government" or "some member of the government," it would be "state action." If the answer is "only private individuals," it wouldn't be "state action." Therefore, this is the correct answer.

  3. C
    What principle or principles Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) We are looking for an answer choice that asks whether the government performed the action. Does this answer choice address that issue?

    No. But many people incorrectly chose this answer choice, so let's take a closer look at what is being said. This answer choice asks which principle governed the action. Another word for "principle" is "rule." So, this answer choice refers to the rules that control or influence the action. However, the passage doesn't place any importance on the rules that factor into one's actions when distinguishing state and private action. In fact, that's not a topic the passage addresses. So, this question would not help us determine whether an action can be considered a "state action," and we can eliminate (C).

  4. D
    In what ways can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) We are looking for an answer choice that asks whether the government performed the action. Does this answer choice address that issue?

    Negative. Like answer choice (A), this question addresses the effect the action will have on others. However, the author tells us that the person who performs the action is what matters in distinguishing state from private action.

  5. E
    What motivations can be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) We are looking for an answer choice that asks whether the government performed the action. Does this answer choice address that issue?

    No. The author never mentions the actor's motivations when distinguishing state and private action. Instead, we're told that the person who performs the action distinguishes a state action from private action.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 12%
  2. B Credited 62%
  3. C 19%
  4. D 5%
  5. E 2%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • please explain 3 replies

    Started by maonuo

  • Highlight 1 reply

    Started by priyap59

View all discussions Start a discussion