Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT125 S3 P1 Q3 Explanation

Thurgood Marshall

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAnalogyLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Most of what has been written about Thurgood Marshall, a former United States Supreme Court justice who served from 1967 to 1991, has just focused on his judicial record and on the ideological content of his earlier achievements as a lawyer pursuing civil rights issues in the courts. But when Marshall’s career the opportunity arose, set up a predetermined legal campaign that was meticulously crafted and carefully coordinated.

One aspect of this campaign, the test case strategy, involved sponsoring litigation of tactically chosen cases at the trial court level with careful evaluation of the precedential nuances and potential impact of each decision. This allowed Marshall to try out different approaches and discover which was the best to be used. An cases with sympathetic litigants, whose public appeal, credibility, and commitment to the NAACP’s goals were unsurpassed.

In addition, Marshall used sociological and psychological statistics—presented in expert testimony, for example, about the psychological impact of enforced segregation—as a means of transforming constitutional law by persuading the courts that certain discriminatory laws produced public harms in violation of constitutional principles. This tactic, while often effective, has been criticized by some in their justifications for decisions where the purely legal principles appear inconclusive.

Since the time of Marshall’s work with the NAACP, the number of public interest law firms in the U.S. has grown substantially, and they have widely adopted his combination of strategies for litigation, devoting them to various public purposes. These strategies have been used, for example, in consumer advocacy campaigns and, more be a radical departure from accepted conventions—have become the norm for U.S. public interest litigation today.

What this question is testing

Analogy

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
3.

Which one of the following pairs of tactics used by an environmental-advocacy public interest law firm is most closely analogous to the strategies that Marshall utilized during

Answer choices

  1. Correct72% picked this

    a decision to pursue a pollution case based on its potential legal implications for a large class of related cases; and testimony by a

    Why this is right

    This answer has the Test Cases and Societal Stats we were looking for. This environmental firm is pursuing a case based on its potential legal implications for a large class of related cases, just as Marshall and the NAACP were engaged in sponsoring litigation of cases at the trial court level with careful evaluation of the precedential nuances and potential impact of each decision. Marshall was pursuing discrimination cases in order to carefully evaluate their potential impact (legal implications) on the larger class of related cases, those being caused by state-sanctioned racial segregation. In the 3rd paragraph, we hear that they would present in expert testimony ... the impact of enforced segregation ... persuading the courts that these laws produced public harms. In this answer, we have an expert (noted medical authority) presenting evidence that this activity (pollution) is producing public harms (widespread medical problems).

    Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Double-Bad Match3% picked this

    acceptance of a pollution case based on the practical urgency of its expected impact on the environment if a ruling in favor of the

    Marshall selected cases based on his strategic interests, not based on the practical urgency of this specific case. And there's nothing in the passage indicating that Marshall and the NAACP assigned these cases to the "best / most widely known" members of the firm.

  3. Double-Bad Match14% picked this

    preference for pursuing a series of cases that are to be tried in courts having a record of decisions that are favorable to environmental

    The first half of this sounds somewhat like the Test Cases strategy, except Marshall wasn't said to be picking cases based the whether that court had a record of being favorable to his interests. He may have specifically been picking cases in harder-to-win areas, since he was trying to sort through what works and what doesn't. (If you were in a court already inclined to believe you, you'd get less of that feedback) Secondly, we never heard anything about a strategy of seeking out specific judges who had a certain trait.

  4. Double-Bad Match10% picked this

    acceptance of a pollution damage case based primarily on the potential plaintiff’s needs; and careful orchestration of pretrial publicity designed to acquaint

    The first half of this sounds somewhat like the Test Cases strategy, except Marshall wasn't said to be picking cases based on how bad that specific plaintiff needed him or to be customizing his case to that plaintiff's needs. To the contrary, it sounds more like Marshall was experimenting (according to his own purposes) with what would work best. So he seemingly was willing to lose a case here or there (the opposite of catering to the plaintiff's needs) in order to try out a certain argumentative strategy. The 2nd half doesn't match anything. We never talked about Marshall engaging with the public to educate them pre-trial.

  5. Bad 2nd Match2% picked this

    thorough and painstaking research of precedents relating to a current pollution case; and consultations with lawyers for the

    We could probably live with the 1st half here, since a component of Test Cases involved studying the nuances of precedent. But the 2nd ingredient doesn't match anything. We never hear about Marshall consulting with opposing lawyers, hoping they can avoid this ever going to trial.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free