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:

Begging the claim (also known as circular reasoning) occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of the premises. In the Dred Scott v. Sandford opinion, the Court assumes Black people are inferior (a premise) to conclude they are not citizens (the conclusion), without providing independent evidence for their inferiority. A genetic fallacy is about the origin of an idea, a hasty generalization is a broad conclusion from limited examples, and ad populum is an appeal to popularity. None of these fit as well as begging the claim.

Answer:

begging the claim