Reading comp PrepTest 151 · Section 1 · Question 6

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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Consult notes and choose the answer choice that ties the author’s evidence to the conclusion the author reaches

Answer Anticipation

First, what even is this question? The phrase “following principle” in the question stem might ring a bell if you’ve been working on Principle questions in Logical Reasoning. This phrase shows up in Principle (Strengthen) questions in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. In these questions, we have to pick the answer choice with the principle — or rule — that connects the author’s evidence to the conclusion the author reaches.So, we'll use our notes and what we highlighted and underlined to remind ourselves about the various pieces of evidence the author uses — that the "attribution" rationale would completely blur a distinction that it's integral to the Fourteenth Amendment (P3, S1), that subsequent courts haven't followed the "attribution" rationale (P3, S3), and that the Court said that racially restrictive covenants were legal (P4, S1). And we'll also refer to the main point to remind ourselves of the conclusion the author reached — that the "attribution" rationale doesn't withstand scrutiny or address the real problem with such racially restrictive covenants. Let's look for the answer choice that ties the author's evidence to the conclusion.

Answer choices

  1. A
    If a judicial decision Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this principle connect the author's evidence to the conclusion?

    Not quite — this answer choice actually has it backwards. The principle that would strengthen the author's argument would show that the author's evidence naturally leads to the author's conclusion. This answer choice says the author's conclusion naturally leads to the author's premise. If this answer choice said, "If subsequent courts referain from appealing to a judicial decision, that decision should be deemed by legal scholars to be problematic" it would be correct. As written, it's wrong.

  2. B
    If a private agreement Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this principle connect the author's evidence to the conclusion?

    Nope. The author never says that judicially uneforceable private agreements — like property deeds with racially restrictive covenants — should be included in statutes (laws). The author would definitely not want laws to prevent members from certain races from occcupying property.

  3. C
    If a judicial decision Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this principle connect the author's evidence to the conclusion?

    Not exactly. But many test-takers incorrectly chose this one, so let’s take a closer look. The author does agree that the Shelley decision failed to address the most troubling aspect of the case — the legality of including racially restrictive covenants in property deeds. However, the author doesn't conclude that the anyone should take measures to prevent the inclusion of such covenants from continuing. In fact, the author just calls this practice troubling and does mention searching for a solution. (Which makes sense, the Shelley case effectively outlawed such covenants, even if it reasoned that such covenants were technically legal absent judicial enforcement.) Although it is tempting to believe the author would want something done, this is not actually a conclusion the author reaches.

  4. D
    If courts are hesitant Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this principle connect the author's evidence to the conclusion?

    Yes it does! This connects one of the author's premises — that lower courts haven't applied the Shelley Court's "attribution" rationale — to the conclusion that attribution rationale is questionable. Therefore, we can justifiably select (D) and wrap up this passage.

  5. E
    If the rationale given Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this principle connect the author's evidence to the conclusion?

    Nope. The author doesn't say the rationale in Shelley is controversal to people other than the author. In fact, the author says the Court's decision is "celbrated" (P1, S3). And the author doesn't conclude that the Court should provide a new rationale for its decision.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B 15%
  3. C 29%
  4. D Credited 39%
  5. E 9%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion