Question

read the passage from the opinion of the court in dred scott v. sandford, written by justice taney. the question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? we think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word \citizens\ in the constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the united states. on the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them. what type of logical error underlies the argument that black people were inferior? genetic fallacy begging the claim hasty generalization ad populum

Explanation:

• Genetic fallacy: Focuses on the origin of an idea, not relevant here as the argument isn't about the origin of the claim about Black people being inferior.
• Begging the claim: Assumes the conclusion in the premise. The court's argument assumes Black people are inferior (as a subordinate class) without proper evidence, which is circular reasoning (begging the claim).
• Hasty generalization: Makes a broad conclusion from limited evidence. But the issue here is more about circular reasoning rather than over - generalizing from a small sample.
• Ad populum: Appeals to popular opinion. The court's argument doesn't rely on what the majority thinks.

Answer:

begging the claim