Q9

[mking0340]

In this question, I marked D as my answer, but the correct answer is B. I eliminated the other three answers easily.

Firstly, upon review, D looks to be out of scope by the phrase "in any future cases." does that fit the description of why it is incorrect?

Secondly, is the support for the correct answer (B) found in lines 5-8, and 50-58? They both seems to relate to the question at hand and that answer specifically.

[tommywallach]

Hey Mking,

This question is secretly asking about the main point of the passage, which is that Marshall probably needed to play the small game (exemplified by Shelley v. Kraemer) before he could hit the big game (Brown v. Board of Education).

(A) The whole point of the argument is that Marshall's argument in Shelley v. Kraemer was critical to overturning "separate but equal," which is the opposite of what this answer says.

(B) This is the main point of the argument. He needed the little game before he could hit the big game.

(C) This contradicts the passage. The court did excuse private dealings before Shelley v. Kraemer. That case compelled them to overturn that rule.

(D) Really read that last sentence: "...Shelley prepared the court to accept such data as convincing evidence for finding "separate but equal" insupportable on its face." In other words, they might very well have accepted sociological data for all kinds of other stuff. All Marshall did was get them to accept it for this specific purpose.

(E) We definitely don't know if the court would have accomplished the same goal by some other means.

Hope that helps!

-t

[tommywallach]

Hey Mking,

I forgot to mention that you absolutely correctly located the lines that support the correct answer here. 5-8 alone is pretty clear about it! (Though the case name isn't mentioned until later...tricky!).

-t

[roflcoptersoisoi]

(D) is tempting, we know that the court accepted sociological data for Shelley and that he employed a similar strategy in Brown. However, we cannot ascertain based on what we know from the passage that the court began to RELY on sociological data for some cases following Shelley and or Brown let alone for all subsequent cases. Even if we conceded that it was in fact true, we cannot say unequivocally that is was because of Shelley.

[hnadgauda]

The scholars mentioned in the question are in P3. The scholars prepared the Supreme Court to accept sociological data as *convincing* evidence for making "separate but equal" illegal!!

The word convincing is very important.

On to the answer choices:
A: His argument in Shelley was crucial convincing the court to overturn "separate but equal." Plus--Political reasons? Out of scope!
B: Yes. This is what is meant by convincing!
C: Sounds like the opposite of what is said in this answer choice would have happened without Marshall's argument in Shelley!
D: Look at what this is saying. Without Marshall's argument, the court would have NEVER relied on sociological data in any future cases? NEVER? This is ridiculous and wrong!
E: Again, like C, sounds like the opposite of what is said in this answer choice would have happened...

B is right. This seems to depend on the very last sentence of the entire passage!