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

According to the passage, 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

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses the more theoretical approach to proceeding against the "separate but equal" doctrine, 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 find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. 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.Here, the question asks about the second approach being debated by the NAACP prior to Marshall's argument in Brown. Where did those show up in the passage? Because this was an item in a list of approaches outlined in the second paragraph, we should have either highlighted this item or written a note about it on scratch paper. Our highlights or notes will reveal that this theoretical approach was discussed in the middle of the second paragraph. If you do not trust your memory or your notes to form a reliable anticipation, you can re-read that part of the passage, or CTRL+F "theoretical," to find the reference. There, the author relayed that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound (P2, S3). So, we should look for an answer choice that states that.It can also help to review the first approach — to show individual instances of unequal facilities and pursue practical litigation to improve such facilities (P2, S2) — as incorrect answer choices may relate to that alternative.

Answer choices

  1. A
    show that the doctrine Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice say that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound?

    No. This is more aligned with the first, more practical approach — to pursue practical litigation to improve facilities that were, in fact, not "equal" and thus improve opportunities for African-American folks (P2, S2) — than the second, more theoretical approach.

  2. B
    argue that the doctrine Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this answer choice say that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound?

    Yes! This is precisely how the second, more theoretical approach is described in the second paragraph (P2, S3). We can justifiably select (B) and advance straight to the next question without reviewing any of the remaining answer choices.

  3. C
    adopt a short–term strategy Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice say that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound?

    Nope. This reflects Marshall's hybrid strategy — start with the more practical approach in the short term before transitioning to the theoretical approach to make the final argument against "separate but equal" (P2, S4) — and not the more theoretical approach.

  4. D
    erode its foundations by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice say that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound?

    No. This is more aligned with the first, more practical approach — to pursue practical litigation to improve facilities that were, in fact, not "equal" and thus improve opportunities for African-American folks (P2, S2) — than the second, more theoretical approach.

  5. E
    demonstrate that the separate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice say that the theoretical approach was to argue that "separate but equal" was impossible to fulfill and thus self-contradictory and legally unsound?

    Negative. This is more aligned with the first, more practical approach — to pursue practical litigation to improve facilities that were, in fact, not "equal" and thus improve opportunities for African-American folks (P2, S2) — than the second, more theoretical approach.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion