PrepTest 115

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.

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.

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).