#4 - Author's Perspective

[snowy]

Can you explain why C is the correct answer, and not D or E?

Thank you! Also, this is a must be true; author's perspective question, right?

[Jay Donnell]

Hi Snowy!

You are very correct in nailing the correct question type, this is a MBT/Author's perspective. Keeping that in mind, it's important to realize the lens through which an author of an LSAT passage will view a celebrated legal hero, especially one from an underrepresented demographic.

That means that the general tone that the author will have toward Thurgood Marshall will certainly be positive, which helps to eliminate A and B here. I think E can fall short under a similar vein in that 'subjective' hardly seems unequivocally positive, and might even belie a slight dig. I think D loses in a large sense due to the importance of the concept of necessary on the LSAT, especially in contrast with the idea of being sufficient. In that sense, I feel 'sufficient' would have been better applied here in that his strategy did seem to be effective in reaching his legal goals. The term 'essential' is used in paragraph two, but it mentions specifically that a certain element was necessary for the test-case strategy, not that the entire strategy itself was necessary for Marshall in his legal efforts.

A major theme in the LSAT reading comprehension is celebrating those individuals who are revolutionaries in their craft. Whether it be in art, science or law, individuals who push boundaries and exhibit progressive and innovative methods are given generally very positive treatment by the authors, and this passage follows suit.

The support for C comes subtly throughout the passage in the general praise for how Marshall took a creative path in his (line 10):"strategic and methodological legacy to the field of public interest law," but I see the most direct support for his strategy being unprecedented from this phrase around line 13-15: "he and the NAACP developed innovations that forever changed the landscape of public interest law."

I hope that helps! Happy Friday

[snowy]

Thank you, Jay! I really appreciate your help.

I guess I read the part you quoted from lines 13-15 as supporting the idea that his work in general was innovative, but 1. is that necessarily synonymous to being unprecedented? and 2. does that necessarily mean that a specific strategies was also innovative/unprecedented? Doesn't that improperly apply a characteristic of the whole to the parts?

I chose subjective because all the criteria listed in lines 31-33 were subjective. I was iffy about it because of the potentially negative connotation as you said, but unprecedented seemed a little too strong and questionable in terms of what I said above.

Thank you again, Jay!!

[Jay Donnell]

Hola!

You are totally right (and impressively so, might I add ) to pick on a potential whole-to-part shift in meaning here from Marshall's campaign to one strategy within said campaign, but here I believe that any potential shift is safely innocuous. The author introduced Marshall's innovative campaign and then spoke of two specific elements within it, and this question asks of the first.

I'm actually super glad you responded to my first post, because in looking back at this particular example I feel I big time blew it in not highlighting the language from the final paragraph, which I think completely backs up the reasoning behind choosing 'unprecedented.'

In that windy final sentence of the passage, the author refers to Marshall's techniques as now having been widely adopted, but at the time were "originally considered to be a radical departure from accepted conventions." This presents I think overwhelming support for his techniques (including the two we discussed in the test-case strategy and the use of sociological data) being unprecedented.

In response to the first of your queries, I wouldn't go as far to say that 'innovative' and 'unprecedented' are entirely identical, but they serve a similar enough context to be used in place of each other in a question which asks how an author's opinion can be "most reasonably inferred."

Thanks again for your response and I hope this helps seal the deal!

[rwraulynaitis]

Hi PowerScore,

I am now seeing how the author views the test case strategy as unprecedented, but I still do not see how the answer choice (B), inflexible, is incorrect. I interpreted the last sentence of the second paragraph, which mentions "carefully selecting cases" with select "public appeal, credibility, and commitment to the NAACP's goals," as showing how his process was exact and thus not flexible.

Also, regarding Jay's response above, how does "inflexible" have a negative connotation?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi rw,

Setting aside the negative or positive connotations of the term "inflexible" for a moment, I would question whether "inflexible" and "exact" are true synonyms. A person can have "exact" criteria that affect their decisions in different (flexible) ways, depending on the circumstances of the particular situation they're considering. Indeed, when a person has many exact criteria they're thinking about (as Marshall did, in considering "precedential nuances," "potential impact," "sympathetic litigants," "public appeal," "credibility," "commitment," etc.), it's not surprising that they have to be a little flexible, depending on how the various factors they're considering come together in a particular instance.

But, and here's the key, there's actually textual support for the fact that Marshall's test case strategy was flexible: the author says that it "allowed Marshall to try out different approaches and discover which was the best to be used." Being able to try out different approaches is a hallmark of flexibility! That's enough to eliminate answer choice B.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy