PrepTest 115

[lcid:3556] Prep Test 115 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 6-12  .        Thurgood Marshall's litigation of Brown v. Board  . of Education in 1952—the landmark case, decided in Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Legal scholars' conclusion (cases before Brown necessary to Marshall's success in Brown)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Legal scholars' view:
      • Marshall's cases in the sixteen years before Brown v. Board of Education were necessary, as they allowed Marshall to test legal strategies and erode the discriminatory foundation of segregation (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "landmark" (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Marshall's hybrid approach (show facilities not equal first, then show SBE is legally unsound)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of approaches in the NAACP:
      • The "practical approach" toward overturning SBE, focused on showing that the facilities weren't equal and improving opportunities/facilities for African Americans (second sentence)
      • The "theoretical approach" toward overturning SBE, focused on arguing that SBE is self-contradictory and legally unsound (third sentence)
      • Marshall's hybrid approach toward overturning SBE, which used the "practical approach" first and the "theoretical approach" to finally overturn SBE (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "more theoretical" (third sentence); "correctly believed" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Support for legal scholars (early cases like Shelley contributed to success in Brown)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Examples of Marshall's successes using the "practical approach":
      • Voting practices, grad students cases (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship:
      • Early cases allowed Marshall to create a strategy that caused him to be able to make a broader social argument to overturn SBE (first sentence)
    • Example of an early case that prepared the court to overturn SBE, according to legal scholars:
      • Shelley v. Kraemer, which prepared courts to accept sociological data in Brown (second through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "several successes" (first sentence)

Main Point: Legal scholars claim that Thurgood Marshall's early cases before the Supreme Court were necessary for Marshall to develop a successful legal argument in Brown v. Board of Education.

Meta-Structure?

Reporting a Viewpoint: This passage uses the "Reporting a Viewpoint" Meta-Structure*, as the author simply outlines another group's view without offering any commentary, support, or criticism. When a passage uses this structure, the main point is simply the viewpoint the author recounts. In this passage, that view is the legal scholars': that Marshall needed early cases in front of the Supreme Court to test out his argumentative strategies, erode some of the discriminatory foundations of the "separate but equal" doctrine, and prepare the court to hear his successful argument in Brown v. Board of Education.

*That said, you don't need Thurgood Marshall's gifts of persuasion to convincingly argue that this passage uses a different Meta-Structure. You could call this a Problem/Solution (problem: the separate-but-equal doctrine; solution: Marshall's approach), Innovative [Subject] (focusing on Marshall's innovations), or even a Generalization/Example passage (with Shelley illustrating how Marshall used early cases to prepare the court to overturn the separate-but-equal doctrine).

Examples: There's a key example discussed at length in the third paragraph: the Shelley v. Kraemer case (P3, S2-4). Given the length at which the example was discussed and the importance of that example in supporting the legal scholars' main point, we should certainly anticipate getting at least one question about it. We should, therefore, have the example highlighted or noted on our scratch paper and understand what the example was (a case in which Marshall used sociological data to get the court to rule against the practice of private housing discrimination) and the broader point it illustrates (these early cases allowed Marshall to test out arguments and prepare the courts to hear certain arguments, and were thus necessary to Marshall's success in Brown).

Lists: Three items in a list are discussed throughout the second paragraph. We'll likely get at least one question about at least one of the items, so it's important to understand each item on the list and its location. We can track this by highlighting or noting each item on our scratch paper.

Last Thoughts?

There's very little authorial voice in this passage. The author never supports or questions the legal scholars' view. There are no strong adjectives or adverbs that betray the author's beliefs. The closest phrases we get to typical tonal phrases ("landmark" (P1, S1), "more theoretical" (P2, S3), "correctly believed" (P2, S4)) convey facts more than opinions. Therefore, we should not anticipate getting any questions about the author's attitude. Instead, we'll likely get questions about the legal scholars' view, the passage's structure, and the supporting details (including at least one question about Shelley, an important example the legal scholars cite and that the author dedicates a large part of the passage to).

Question prompt

It can most reasonably 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

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underline to locate where the passage discusses Marshall's strategy for attacking "separate but equal," and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, an answer choice that must be true, quickly finding and reviewing those details is critical. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed. Since the question stem asks us to make an inference, the correct answer probably won't restate something from the passage. Instead, the question will likely require us to draw a connection between a few different pieces of information.Here, the question asks about Marshall's strategy for attacking "separate but equal." Where did that show up in the passage? Our note for the second paragraph ("Marshall's hybrid approach (show facilities not equal first, then show SBE is legally unsound)") should point us there. If you do not trust your memory or your notes to form a reliable anticipation, you can re-read the end of that paragraph. There, the author discussed how Marshall believed that in the short term, he would need to use the more practical approach to show how unequal many public resources were before eventually turning to the more theoretical approach to repeal the "separate but equal" doctrine altogether (P2, S4).Although it's difficult to predict what exactly the correct answer will say, it will likely reflect on one of the features of Marshall's plan that this part of the passage discussed: that it used both approaches separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical, etc. Let's use this loose anticipation to guide us through the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    sought to answer critics Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that Marshall's strategy used both approaches the separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, or that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical?

    Nope. Our review of our notes and the second paragraph didn't suggest that Marshall developed his legal strategy to "answer critics within the NAACP." While there were two debating factions within the NAACP as Marshall developed his legal strategy (P2, S1), the passage never characterizes either side as "critics" or claims that Marshall crafted his strategy as a response to either group.

  2. B
    suggested Marshall thought the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that Marshall's strategy used both approaches the separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, or that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical?

    No. In fact, this answer choice directly contradicts a claim made in the second paragraph. The second paragraph outlines the first, practical approach, and then the second, theoretical approach, before stating, "Marshall correctly believed that the latter approach would eventually be the one to bring repeal of the doctrine" (P2, S4). So Marshall did, in fact, believe that the court would eventually accept the validity of the theoretical argument.

  3. C
    satisfied the requirement that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that Marshall's strategy used both approaches the separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, or that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical?

    Nope. This answer choice brings up a topic ("lower court") that we didn't see brought up in our notes or our review of the second paragraph. Each case that this passage discusses focuses on Marshall's argument made in the Supreme Court, the highest court in the U.S. In fact, the passage never discusses arguments made in lower courts, so this answer choice is not supported.

  4. D
    presumed that the court Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this say that Marshall's strategy used both approaches the separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, or that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical?

    Yes, this reflects our anticipation that Marshall's strategy was an incremental approach. Therefore, we can select (D) and advance to the following question.

    After all, the last sentence of the second paragraph gives us enough information to infer that Marshall thought the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn "separate but equal." Notice how it says that Marshall believed that the theoretical argument would be the one that would "eventually" overturn "separate but equal," but that it was "necessary in the

    short term" to bring the more practical arguments to the court? If Marshall did not think the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn "separate but equal," he'd have no reason to bring the more practical arguments first. He could go directly to the knockout blow with the theoretical argument. Since he thought the practical argument was necessary at first, he definitely thought the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn "separate but equal."

  5. E
    reflected Marshall's preference to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that Marshall's strategy used both approaches the separate sides of the NAACP advocated, that it was an incremental approach, or that it would focus on the practical before becoming theoretical?

    No. Our review of our notes and the second paragraph didn't suggest that Marshall preferred to seek practical goals, so this cannot be reasonably inferred from the passage. Although Marshall utilized the more practical approach first, this was not necessarily based on his preference for practical outcomes. Rather, the passage suggests he used this practical approach at first to evolve "a strategy for arguing against pervasive discriminatory practices" that would allow him to make "the leap from individual instances of inequality to the broader social argument needed to later invalidate 'separate but equal'" (P2, S4). So, it wasn't a preference for practical goals that motivated Marshall to utilize a practical approach at first; he utilized such an approach to provide an opportunity to develop a broad, theoretical argument.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why D? 1 reply

    Started by MasonDees

  • Choice A 1 reply

    Started by Meredith

  • Question 1 reply

    Started by meisen

View all discussions Start a discussion