Answered

At Westonci.ca, we provide clear, reliable answers to all your questions. Join our vibrant community and get the solutions you need. Experience the convenience of finding accurate answers to your questions from knowledgeable professionals on our platform. Discover in-depth answers to your questions from a wide network of professionals on our user-friendly Q&A platform.

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?

A. Hasty generalization
B. Ad populum
C. Begging the claim
D. Genetic fallacy

Sagot :

GinnyAnswer

Final answer:

The fallacy in Justice Taney's argument in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case is begging the claim, assuming a conclusion without adequate support.


Explanation:

The fallacy represented in Justice Taney's argument in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case is begging the claim. In his statement, Taney assumes that individuals described in the plea in abatement are not citizens without providing substantial evidence or reasoning to support this assertion, thereby circularly arguing his point without proving its validity.


Learn more about Fallacy in Justice Taney's argument here:

https://brainly.com/question/36320333


We appreciate your time. Please come back anytime for the latest information and answers to your questions. We appreciate your visit. Our platform is always here to offer accurate and reliable answers. Return anytime. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed with our latest expert advice.