Last visit was: 16 Jul 2024, 06:12 It is currently 16 Jul 2024, 06:12
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36503 [3]
Given Kudos: 5828
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Current Student
Joined: 11 Apr 2020
Status:Working hard
Posts: 408
Own Kudos [?]: 242 [0]
Given Kudos: 821
Location: India
GPA: 3.93
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Posts: 250
Own Kudos [?]: 140 [0]
Given Kudos: 216
Send PM
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36503 [0]
Given Kudos: 5828
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Mike20201 wrote:
Sajjad1994

Could you elaborate Q6, D.
Thanks beforehand.


Explanation


6. The function of the third paragraph is to

Difficulty Level: Medium

Explanation

“Function”—we’re in Logic land, specifically the “purpose of…” question type. Since it’s the purpose of a paragraph, a quick reference to the Roadmap is in order. Sums up the Paragraph’s particular content. But look: The five choices are largely written in the abstract rather than the particular, and each relates Paragraph 3 to other paragraphs. So your prediction should do likewise. Ask yourself, how does paragraph 3 relate to what came before? Your reply should be something along the lines of, It lives up to the promise of lines 5–11; it takes us, methodically and chronologically, to the point made by scholars up front. What could be clearer than (A)?

(B) Contrary to (B), the distinction between strategies presented in paragraph 2 isn’t sharpened in paragraph 3. Indeed, Marshall uses a combination of the two strategies to achieve his goal of ending discrimination.

(C), (E) Each is 180º off. Paragraph 3 doesn’t question the claims in paragraph 1 (C); it supports them. And the bigotry implied by the effort described in (E) is far, far from the views of this author.

Answer: A


Explanation Credit: Kaplan LSAT
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1246
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
Sajjad1994 can you add 4 and 5?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 770
Own Kudos [?]: 695 [0]
Given Kudos: 1316
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
CEdward wrote:
Sajjad1994 can you add 4 and 5?



Hi CEdward,

Would be glad to help you out, if you could let me know your doubt??


Thanks.
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
Sajjad1994
Quote:

2. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that Marshall’s legal strategy for attacking the “separate but equal” doctrine

(A) sought to answer critics within the NAACP
(B) suggested Marshall thought the court would never accept the validity of a theoretical argument
(C) satisfied the requirement that cases first be argued in lower court
(D) presumed that the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn the “separate but equal” doctrine
(E) reflected Marshall’s preference to seek practical goals

Marshall presented sociological data demonstrating that, in sum and over time, these individual
transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable discrimination. Marshall later used this strategy when arguing against individual schools’ enrollment

I think his strategy was: to accumulate transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable discrimination and used this to argue against discriminatory practice

With this thought, I choose C
( that he wanted to practice in lower courts/other cases at first)


D option is too extreme : ONLY gradually be convinced. I don’t know where is it mentioned in the passage.
Why to select D an answer.

Please share official explanation for Q2

Thanks Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36503 [1]
Given Kudos: 5828
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
mSKR wrote:
Sajjad1994
Quote:

2. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that Marshall’s legal strategy for attacking the “separate but equal” doctrine

(A) sought to answer critics within the NAACP
(B) suggested Marshall thought the court would never accept the validity of a theoretical argument
(C) satisfied the requirement that cases first be argued in lower court
(D) presumed that the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn the “separate but equal” doctrine
(E) reflected Marshall’s preference to seek practical goals

Marshall presented sociological data demonstrating that, in sum and over time, these individual
transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable discrimination. Marshall later used this strategy when arguing against individual schools’ enrollment

I think his strategy was: to accumulate transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable discrimination and used this to argue against discriminatory practice

With this thought, I choose C
( that he wanted to practice in lower courts/other cases at first)


D option is too extreme : ONLY gradually be convinced. I don’t know where is it mentioned in the passage.
Why to select D an answer.

Please share official explanation for Q2

Thanks Sajjad1994


Explanation


2. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that Marshall’s legal strategy for attacking the “separate but equal” doctrine

Difficulty Level: Hard

Explanation

The first five words of the question stem clearly scream “Inference,” and we need to remember that an inference may stem from several parts of the passage, or from a careful paraphrase of a single reference. The latter is really the case here. Marshall’s legal strategy against the “separate but equal” policy is discussed at the end of Paragraph 2; he felt that it would be “necessary in the short term” to argue against individual injustices—a clear implication that time would be needed for the argument against “separate but equal” itself to prevail “eventually.” This “short term/eventually” contrast supports (D)’s reference to the idea of overturning the policy slowly.

(A) While there were surely some in the NAACP who did not agree with Marshall’s legal strategies, the passage gives no indication that Marshall’s goal was to answer his NAACP critics.

(B) is 180º off, since lines 27–29 clearly imply Marshall’s belief that the courts would eventually accept the validity of his arguments against “separate but equal” policies.

(C) distorts the idea of “necessary” (line 29), which refers to the necessity of one short-term strategy in order for another one to prevail in time. The passage gives no indication at all that Marshall or anyone else would be required to argue in lower court before moving up to the Supreme Court.

(E) If Marshall was working out a theory vs. practice dilemma for himself, the passage mentions none of it. We learn nothing about Marshall as a person except for his legal battles.

Answer: D
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2020
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 148 [0]
Given Kudos: 313
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.6
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994 Thanks for your continuous support with RC Passages ..

Can you please help with the answer to the following questions -

Q4. Why isnt D the answer to this question and why did we make such a bold conclusion that the court would NOT HAVE RULED IN HIS FAVOR ?? when scholars have merely stated that the courts would not have been prepared to accept such strategy. (unless i am missing some reference point)
(scholars argue that his successful use of the strategy in Shelley prepared the court to accept such data as convincing evidence for finding “separate but equal” insupportable on its face.)

(B) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have ruled in his favor on Brown v. Board of Education.
(D) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably never have relied on sociological data in any future cases.



Q7. How did you eliminate option E - - Is it because of the term legal Doctrine ?
7. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(E) call attention to an unsound legal doctrine by focusing on the strategy of its successful challenger
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36503 [2]
Given Kudos: 5828
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Hi Anuragsharma93

Q4. Why isnt D the answer to this question and why did we make such a bold conclusion that the court would NOT HAVE RULED IN HIS FAVOR ?? when scholars have merely stated that the courts would not have been prepared to accept such strategy. (unless i am missing some reference point)
(scholars argue that his successful use of the strategy in Shelley prepared the court to accept such data as convincing evidence for finding “separate but equal” insupportable on its face.)

(B) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have ruled in his favor on Brown v. Board of Education.
(D) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably never have relied on sociological data in any future cases.


The focus is the scholars who, we must recall, credit Marshall’s early legal strategies with paving the way for Brown. So anything they would be “likely to believe” must hinge somehow on that. This question offers another big, fat hint in the wording of the answer choices: Each begins with “Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer,” language that signals—are you ready?—a necessary condition. What would that Shelley argument be necessary for? Why, the rejection of “separate but equal,” of course. (Have you forgotten the huge Keyword phrase “necessary forerunners,” line 8? Hope not.) This question in its shy way is dealing with Global issues and (B) hits the nail on the head. Without Marshall’s earlier argument in Shelley, paving the way, the court in Brown probably would not have ruled in his favor.

For (D) in the same way as (C), we have no way of knowing whether courts would have accepted sociological data had Marshall not presented it during Shelley. Furthermore, (D) doesn’t address the scholars’ focus on laying the legal groundwork.

Answer: B

Q7. How did you eliminate option E - - Is it because of the term legal Doctrine ?
7. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(E) call attention to an unsound legal doctrine by focusing on the strategy of its successful challenger


Correct choice (C) for this Global, “primary purpose” question is as abstract in its own way. But (C) shouldn’t be tough to accept. As noted earlier, there are four various references to “success” throughout the passage, and we can readily see the “strategy” of paragraph 2 that led to the “successful legal argument” of Brown.

(E) gets the emphasis all wrong. The author is trying to “call attention to” Marshall’s legal strategizing, not to highlight “separate but equal."

Answer: C
Current Student
Joined: 20 Apr 2021
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Schools: Fisher (A)
GRE 1: Q163 V157
GPA: 3.05
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952— [#permalink]
Sajjad1994 wrote:
Hi Anuragsharma93

Q4. Why isnt D the answer to this question and why did we make such a bold conclusion that the court would NOT HAVE RULED IN HIS FAVOR ?? when scholars have merely stated that the courts would not have been prepared to accept such strategy. (unless i am missing some reference point)
(scholars argue that his successful use of the strategy in Shelley prepared the court to accept such data as convincing evidence for finding “separate but equal” insupportable on its face.)

(B) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have ruled in his favor on Brown v. Board of Education.
(D) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably never have relied on sociological data in any future cases.


The focus is the scholars who, we must recall, credit Marshall’s early legal strategies with paving the way for Brown. So anything they would be “likely to believe” must hinge somehow on that. This question offers another big, fat hint in the wording of the answer choices: Each begins with “Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer,” language that signals—are you ready?—a necessary condition. What would that Shelley argument be necessary for? Why, the rejection of “separate but equal,” of course. (Have you forgotten the huge Keyword phrase “necessary forerunners,” line 8? Hope not.) This question in its shy way is dealing with Global issues and (B) hits the nail on the head. Without Marshall’s earlier argument in Shelley, paving the way, the court in Brown probably would not have ruled in his favor.

For (D) in the same way as (C), we have no way of knowing whether courts would have accepted sociological data had Marshall not presented it during Shelley. Furthermore, (D) doesn’t address the scholars’ focus on laying the legal groundwork.

Answer: B

Q7. How did you eliminate option E - - Is it because of the term legal Doctrine ?
7. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(E) call attention to an unsound legal doctrine by focusing on the strategy of its successful challenger


Correct choice (C) for this Global, “primary purpose” question is as abstract in its own way. But (C) shouldn’t be tough to accept. As noted earlier, there are four various references to “success” throughout the passage, and we can readily see the “strategy” of paragraph 2 that led to the “successful legal argument” of Brown.

(E) gets the emphasis all wrong. The author is trying to “call attention to” Marshall’s legal strategizing, not to highlight “separate but equal."

Answer: C


I am bit confused between A and C. Can you clarify. It felt like the passage is speaking about the development of the Brown vs Board case from the start of Marshall's career.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17504
Own Kudos [?]: 868 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952 [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952 [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14066 posts