Q11

[dagen.m.downard]

I was stuck between A, B, and D. I ended up choosing B. After reviewing the passage, I understand why D is incorrect. However, I need some assistance understanding why B is wrong. Is it because the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, lines 35-43, states what Marshall chose to do at the end of the 2nd paragraph ("using the former approach") but the main focus is the Shelley v. Kraemer case assisting in Brown?

Is B also wrong because the 3rd paragraph is not sharpening a distinction that is supposedly made in the 2nd paragraph? Granted, it says those practices allow "him to make the leap from individual instances of inequality to the broader social argument needed to later invalidate separate but equal," but the point, again, isn't about making a distinction as much as it is supporting the whole thesis of the entire passage, which is presented in paragraph 1, lines 5-11.

D is wrong because the third paragraph is not summarizing the argument. Instead, it is giving an example of a case, or THE case, that assisted the most in Brown. Right?

Thanks for the clarification!

[ohthatpatrick]

You nailed the reason (D) is wrong.

I, too, would be choosing between (A) and (B).

First, I'd consider my pre-phrasing for this question (i.e. how I answered this question in my own words before looking at the answers).

I was thinking something like, "3rd paragraph provides the actual examples and details that flesh out the strategy described in the 2nd paragraph: start by arguing for better 'separate but equal' conditions and then ultimately argue that 'separate but equal' is inherently impossible to achieve"

For (A), I'd start asking myself, "What view is there in the 1st paragraph that the 3rd paragraph would provide support for?"

The view:
"the cases Marshall presented to the court in the 16 yrs prior to Brown were necessary forerunners of that case"

The 3rd paragraph definitely supports that idea. It begins with the 12 yrs. of the 'former approach', and then talks about Shelley, which was in 1948 (4 yrs. before 1952's Brown). So, yes, it does describe that 16 year time span and the final sentence of the 3rd paragraph supports the idea that these cases were "necessary forerunners" of Brown.

For (B), I'd start asking myself, "What distinction is made in the 2nd paragraph that the 3rd paragraph would be sharpening?'

The distinction:
the practical vs. theoretical approach

Does the 3rd paragraph sharpen that distinction? Not really. To sharpen the distinction would be to provide more information about the approaches themselves ... how they work from a legal perspective ... how they're different.

Instead, the 3rd paragraph is just describing when he used the first approach vs. when he switched to the second. That's not really clarifying how the approaches are different.

Finally, I would just consider, "Even if I think both answers say something accurate, which is a BETTER answer?"

Ultimately, I thought the 3rd paragraph gave us the chronological payoff of the story this passage is telling us about Marshall.

Because "the view" alluded to in (A) is actually a sentence about Marshall's 16 year story, (A) seems like a stronger answer in terms of relating the 3rd paragraph to the passage as a whole.

Hope this helps.