Reading Comprehension

PT125 · S3 · P1 · Q3 Thurgood Marshall

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

  • 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

Start practicing free

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.

Topic

Thurgood Marshall’s legacy in shaping public interest litigation strategies in the U.S.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy

Main Point

While Thurgood Marshall is usually remembered for his judicial record and civil rights victories, his real innovation—and lasting impact—was in developing groundbreaking legal strategies with the NAACP that transformed how public interest law is practiced in the U.S. ( — last paragraph)

P1: Narrow Focus vs. Strategic Innovations

Most writings focus on Marshall’s court decisions and civil rights work, but if you look at his NAACP career from a technical perspective, you’ll see he revolutionized how public interest law campaigns could be organized—by creating meticulous, coordinated legal strategies, not just addressing cases as they came up.

P2: The Test Case Strategy and Plaintiff Selection

Marshall’s big move was the “test case” approach: purposely picking certain legal battles for their strategic value and for the precedent they could set, not just reacting to whatever cases appeared. He carefully chose plaintiffs who would help the cause the most, knowing that the right person could make or break the case’s impact.

P3: Use of Social Science Evidence (and Criticism)

Marshall also innovated by using social science evidence in court—like expert testimony on the damaging effects of segregation—to persuade judges on constitutional grounds. While effective, this approach has been criticized for relying on evidence outside traditional legal arguments.

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 his work with the NAACP?

  1. Correct

    a decision to pursue 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.

    72% picked this

  2. acceptance of a pollution case

    Double-Bad Match

    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% picked this

  3. preference for pursuing a series

    Double-Bad Match

    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.

    13% picked this

  4. acceptance of a pollution damage

    Double-Bad Match

    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.

    10% picked this

  5. thorough and painstaking research of

    Bad 2nd Match

    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.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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