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

The passage suggests that 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 main point your notes to recall scholars' views, then find an answer that they'd definitely agree with, according to the passage

Answer Anticipation

This Must Be True question asks us to make an inference about the scholars' views. It is difficult to anticipate precisely what the correct answer will say, but we will be better able to select the correct answer if we briefly reflect on the passage's main point — which happens to reflect the scholars' view. That main point is, "The cases Thurgood Marshall presented to the Supreme Court in the sixteen years before Brown were necessary to the development of his successful argument in Brown." We can also review their main piece of evidence: the court's acceptance of sociological data in Shelley prepared the court to accept similar pieces of evidence in Brown.Now, let's find an answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Without Marshall's argument in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence?

    Nope. We can eliminate — or at least table — (A) for this reason.

    If we had to re-read the passage to eliminate (A), we wouldn't find any support for it. The scholars never make any claims about the political motives that may or may not influence the court to rule in certain ways, so we cannot infer that they agree with this answer choice.

  2. B
    Without Marshall's argument in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence?

    Yes! This answer choice makes a supportable connection between the scholars' main point and their main piece of evidence. The scholars' main point is that Marshall's early cases, like Shelley, were necessary to Marshall's successful argument in Brown (P1, S2). If these cases were truly necessary, then Marshall could not have made a successful argument in Brown without them. Therefore, these scholars likely agree with (B), which states that the court probably wouldn't have ruled in Marshall's favor without his argument in Shelley.

  3. C
    Without Marshall's argument in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence?

    Nope. This answer choice uses many of the same words as the excerpt about Shelley, but it totally misconstrues that case's facts and results and the scholars' point about that case. The court excused private dealings from the legal requirement for equal protection of citizens under law before Marshall made his argument in Shelley (P3, S3). After Marshall's argument, the court stopped excusing private dealing from this requirement, at least in housing transactions. The scholars may believe that without Marshall's argument, the court would have continued to excuse private dealings from this legal requirement. But the scholars certainly don't believe that Marshall's argument was necessary to the court excusing private dealings from the legal requirement, which is totally inconsistent with the chronology and holding of Shelley. For this reason, we can eliminate (C).

  4. D
    Without Marshall's argument in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence?

    No. This answer choice goes quite a bit too far. Notice the bold, SCOTUS-y language ("never," "any")? That's reason enough to eliminate — or at least table — (D) without reviewing the passage.

    If we needed to review the scholars' argument to eliminate (D), we'd see that this answer choice is unsupported. The scholars believe that Marshall's argument in Shelly prepared the court to accept similar sociological data in Brown (P3, S4). Since these early cases were also "necessary" for the court's decision in Brown (P1, S2), the scholars may also believe that without Marshall's argument in Shelley, the court may not have accepted sociological data in Brown. However, to claim that the court would have never relied on any sociological data in any case without Marshall's argument in Shelley is far too extreme. The scholars make no claims about any cases heard by the Supreme Court after Brown or any cases about other areas of the law. So, we cannot select an answer choice that makes such a broad and sweeping claim.

  5. E
    Without Marshall's argument in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or the scholars' main piece of evidence?

    Nope. We have no idea whether the scholars believe that the court would have overturned housing discrimination without Marshall's argument or why the court might have done so. The scholars claim that early cases like Shelley were necessary for Marshall's success in Brown (P1, S2). So, we can validly use these early cases to make conclusions about what may have happened in Brown. But we cannot use these cases to make conclusions about what would have happened outside of Brown, as the scholars never claimed that these cases were necessary for anything other than Marshall's success in Brown.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion