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).
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
7.
It can most reasonably be ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ████████
Question Type
Implied
Marshall’s legal strategy for attacking “separate but equal” is described in P2. He wanted to start by arguing that facilities were not in fact equal, and then afterward make the more theoretical argument that “separate but equal” was self-contradictory.
a
sought to answer ███████ ██████ ███ █████
Not supported, because we’re never told that Marshall’s strategy was motivated in any way to respond to critics in the NAACP. He may have disagreed with some of them about strategy, but this doesn’t imply that his approach was an attempt to respond to those critics.
Not supported, because we’re never told that there is a legal requirement that cases first be argued in a lower court. In addition, nothing in P2 discusses Marshall’s legal strategy in relation to lower vs. higher courts.
d
presumed that the █████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ████████
Supported, because Marshall thought the NAACP had to start by arguing that facilities were in fact unequal to help prepare the courts to overturn “separate but equal” on theoretical grounds.”
Not supported, because the author never suggests that Marshall preferred to seek practical goals. His choice to start with arguing that facilities were in fact unequal was motivated by his belief that the court needed to be prepared to accept the theoretical argument.
Difficulty
93% of people who answer get this correct
This is a slightly challenging question.
It is slightly harder than the average question in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%127
137
75%148
Analysis
Implied
Law
Single position
Spotlight
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
0%
158
b
3%
156
c
2%
157
d
93%
166
e
3%
159
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.