PrepTest 115, Section 1, Question 9

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Political reasons aren't offered as an alternative route to victory. This invents a reason the court would have reached the same result without the groundwork the scholars emphasize.

• B
  Correct

  The scholars call the earlier cases “necessary forerunners” and say Shelley made the court ready to find that kind of data persuasive (paragraph 3). Together, those statements support their belief that without this preparation, Marshall probably would not have won Brown. This is their likely judgment about that outcome, not a claim that no other route could ever have existed.

• C

  The court had already excused private dealings before Marshall challenged that treatment in Shelley. C makes removing his argument a reason the earlier exemption would not have existed. That reverses the relationship: his argument challenged a position already in place.

• D

  Never using sociological data in any future case goes far beyond the stated connection to Brown. We aren't given that prediction about all future litigation.

• E

  Nothing says the court would probably have struck down housing discrimination on different grounds. That alternative outcome is speculation, not the scholars' account.