Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952

Question

Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board
of Education in 1952—the landmark case, decided in
1954, that made segregation illegal in United States
public schools—was not his first case before the U.S.
 (5)  Supreme Court. Some legal scholars claim that the
cases he presented to the court in the sixteen years
before his successful argument for desegregation of
public schools were necessary forerunners of that case:
preliminary tests of legal strategies and early erosions
 (10)  of the foundations of discrimination against African
Americans that paved the way for success in Brown.

When Marshall joined the legal staff of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) in 1936, the organization was
 (15)  divided on how to proceed against the legal doctrine
that for forty years had promoted “separate but equal”
facilities for African Americans in educational
institutions, in public transportation, and various other
civic amenities. One approach was to emphasize that
 (20)  facilities were not in fact equal and to pursue litigation
whose practical goal was the improvement both of
opportunity for African Americans and of the facilities
themselves. A second, more theoretical, approach was
to argue that the concept of separate but equal facilities
 (25)  for the races was by its very nature impossible to
fulfill, rendering the doctrine self-contradictory and
hence legally unsound. Marshall correctly believed that
the latter approach would eventually be the one to
bring repeal of the doctrine, but felt it necessary in the
 (30)  short term to argue several cases using the former
approach, in order to demonstrate the numerous ways
in which segregation prevented real equality and thus
to prepare the courts to recognize the validity of the
theoretical argument.

(35)  While Marshall enjoyed several successes arguing
for the equalization of facilities and opportunities in
such areas as voting practices and accommodations for
graduate students at public universities, it would be
twelve years before he evolved a strategy for arguing
 (40)  against pervasive discriminatory practices that enabled
him to make the leap from individual instances of
inequality to the broader social argument needed to
later invalidate “separate but equal.” In 1948, Marshall
litigated Shelley v. Kraemer, in which he convinced the
 (45)  court to outlaw housing discrimination practiced by
private parties. Although the court had previously
supported such practices implicitly under a doctrine
that excused private dealings from the legal
requirement for equal protection of citizens under law,
 (50)  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
 (55)  restrictions in Brown; 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.  
 1 
 1. Which one of the following titles most accurately describes the contents of the passage?

(A) “Broader Social Patterns: Theoretical Arguments Heard in the Supreme Court, 1936–1952”
(B) “Thurgood Marshall: The Growth of His Career, 1936–1952”
(C) “Toward Change: The Development of Thurgood Marshall’s Argument against ‘Separate but Equal,’ 1936–1952”
(D) “Separate but Not Equal: The Impact of Brown v. Board of Education on School Segregation”
(E) “Conflict and Compromise: Early Divisions in the NAACP’s Attack on School Segregation”

2 
 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

3 
 3. According to the passage, sociological data presented by Marshall in Shelley v. Kraemer showed that

(A) numerous examples of individual discriminatory enrollment policies in public schools amounted to a general pattern of discrimination
(B) numerous examples of individual discriminatory transactions by private parties amounted to a general pattern of housing discrimination
(C) the legal requirement for equal treatment of citizens was not applicable to private transactions
(D) the pattern of discrimination in housing transactions was due to inequities in financial resources
(E) the pattern of discrimination in the enrollment policies of public schools was similar to the pattern of insupportable discrimination in housing transactions

4 
 4. The passage suggests that the scholars referred to in the passage would be most likely to believe which one of the following statements?

(A) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably have overturned “separate but equal” for political reasons.
(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.
(C) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have excused private dealings from the legal requirement for equal protection of citizens under law.
(D) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably never have relied on sociological data in any future cases.
(E) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably have overturned discriminatory housing transactions on other grounds.

5 
 5. According to the passage, the more theoretical approach to proceeding against the “separate but equal” doctrine was to

(A) show that the doctrine often resulted in unequal opportunities for African Americans
(B) argue that the doctrine was legally unsound because it contradicted itself
(C) adopt a short-term strategy to prepare for the use of a long-term strategy (D) erode its foundations by successfully arguing individual cases
(E) demonstrate that the separate facilities provided for African Americans were not in fact equitable

6 
 6. The function of the third paragraph is to

(A) provide support for the view presented in the first paragraph
(B) sharpen the distinction made in the second paragraph
(C) question the claim made in the first paragraph
(D) summarize the argument made in the first two paragraphs
(E) counter the criticism of “separate but equal” made in the second paragraph

7 
 7. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) reveal the details of Marshall’s career before he litigated Brown v. Board of Education
(B) examine the effects of a particular legal doctrine on the lives of African Americans
(C) describe the strategy contributing to a successful legal argument
(D) provide guidance to other litigators who attempt to overturn legal doctrines
(E) call attention to an unsound legal doctrine by focusing on the strategy of its successful challenger

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. The function of the third paragraph is to

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

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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

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

Anuragsharma93 · Answer

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

Sajjad1994 · Answer

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

Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards