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. what type of fallacy does this argument represent? hasty generalization ad populum begging the claim genetic fallacy

Explanation:

• Hasty generalization: This fallacy involves making a broad conclusion based on insufficient evidence. In the given passage, Justice Taney is making a broad claim about an entire class of people (likely African - Americans, given the context of Dred Scott v. Sandford) not being citizens. However, he does not provide comprehensive evidence to support this claim for every individual in that class.
• Ad populum: This is an appeal to popularity. There is no indication in the passage that the argument is based on what the majority believes.
• Begging the claim: This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument is the same as the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is that a certain class of people is not citizens, and the premise is that they are not included under the word "citizens" in the Constitution. But this is more of a hasty generalization rather than a circular argument (which begging the claim is).
• Genetic fallacy: This is about judging something based on its origin. The passage is not focused on the origin of the people in question but on their citizenship status.

Answer:

hasty generalization