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?
begging the claim ad populum
hasty generalization genetic fallacy

Explanation:

Begging the claim (also known as circular reasoning) occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion is true. In this case, the court's argument that Black people were inferior assumes the very thing it is trying to prove - that they are a "subordinate and inferior class" without providing valid, independent evidence. It uses the idea of their supposed inferiority (which is under question) as a premise to deny them rights, rather than logically justifying why they are inferior. Ad populum is an appeal - to - the - people fallacy (e.g., "everyone believes X, so X is true"), which is not the case here. Hasty generalization is making a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence (not applicable as no generalizing from a small sample is shown in terms of proving inferiority). Genetic fallacy is based on the origin of something (e.g., "it's bad because of where it came from"), which is not the core error here.

Answer:

begging the claim