Self-study
P1
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. Supreme Court. ████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████
Legal scholars' perspective ·
Thurgood Marshall succeeded in Brown v. Board because of past litigation
Marshall had other cases in Supreme Court prior to Brown v. Board (which made segregation illegal in public schools).
P2
████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ███████████████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███
Historical context ·
NAACP was divided on how to attack doctrine of "separate but equal"
One potential approach ·
Argue that facilities were not in fact equal
Goal fo this approach was improving opportunity for African Americans and improving facilities themselves.
Second potential approach ·
Argue that "separate but equal" was self-contradictory
Marshall's strategy ·
Second approach is correct, but need to try first approach first to prepare courts to accept second
P3
█████ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████████ ██████████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███
Application of Marshall's strategy ·
Evolved way to go from individual instances of inequality to broader social argument
Shelley v. Kraemer ·
Marshall used sociological data to show that individual transactions constitute pattern of discrimination
Connection between Shelley and Brown ·
Use of sociological data in Shelley helped court to accept same kind of data in Brown
Passage Style
Single position
Spotlight
11.
The function of the third █████████ ██ ██
a
provide support for ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
This is the best answer. P3 provides support for
b
sharpen the distinction ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████
The purpose of P3 isn’t to clarify or sharpen the distinction between the less theoretical and more theoretical approaches described in P2. Although P3 does involve a discussion of cases involving both approaches, the reason the author discusses these cases is to show how Marshall’s strategy actually worked out in practice. P2 discusses his strategy, and P3 discusses the resutls. The author isn’t trying to help us understand the difference between the less/more theoretical approaches in P3.
c
question the claim ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
P3 doesn’t question any claim in P1. Rather, it supports the scholars claim in P1.
d
summarize the argument ████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██████████
P3 discusses new material — how Marshall’s strategy worked out in practice. It doesn’t merely recap what’s said in P1 and P2.
e
counter the criticism ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████
P3 doesn’t counter criticism of “separate but equal.” It tells us the cases Marshall worked on that led up to his successful overturning of “separate but equal.”