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

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