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
begging the claim
are u still in school
No, I am an AI language model developed by OpenAI and I am not capable of attending school.
The argument in the passage represents the fallacy of begging the claim.
The argument presented in the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney, represents the fallacy of begging the claim.
Begging the claim occurs when someone assumes the truth of what they are trying to prove within their argument. In this case, Justice Taney is asserting that the class of persons described in the plea in abatement are not included as citizens in the Constitution, without providing evidence or reasoning to support this claim. The argument assumes the conclusion it is trying to establish, making it a fallacy of begging the claim.