RC Passage 2 Explanation
This is an explanation for passage 2 of LSAT preptest 31, the June 2000 LSAT. This passage is about a lawyer, Thurgood Marshall. It discusses how his experience in previous cases let him win Brown v. Board of Education.
This section has paragraph summaries and an analysis of the passage, links to the explanations for the questions are below.
Paragraph Summaries
- Claim: Thurgood Marshall’s early Supreme Court cases allowed him to win Brown v. Board of Education.
- Two approaches: improve the “Separate But Equal” system, or argue that it can never work. Brown used the first as a way to work towards the second.
- Shelley v. Kraemer paved the way for Brown. It persuaded the court to accept sociological data.
Analysis
This passage has a clear progression. You must reread this type of passage if you’re unsure how everything fits together. The thesis is that Marshall’s earlier cases allowed him to win Brown v. Board of education.
The passage describes the two different strategies, and how the first strategy (fixing inequality) led to the success of the second (arguing that inequality could never be fixed under “Separate But Equal”.)
Leave a Reply