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.

Which statement best describes the fallacy in this passage?

Justice Taney assumes that the writers of the Constitution would agree with him about citizenship.
Justice Taney uses the argument that Black people are not citizens to prove that they are not citizens.
Justice Taney assumes that the other justices on the court would agree with him about citizenship.
Justice Taney uses the argument that Dred Scott is an enslaved person to prove that he is not a citizen.

Answer 1

Justice Taney's statement that Black people are not citizens to justify that they are not citizens exemplifies circular reasoning and is the fallacy in the passage.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement that best describes the fallacy in the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney, is that Justice Taney uses the argument that Black people are not citizens to prove that they are not citizens. This reasoning is circular and presents a logical fallacy, as it assumes what it is trying to prove without providing independent evidence or rationale. Justice Taney determined that Dred Scott, as a black person, could not be considered a citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court for his freedom. This decision was based on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, reflecting the prevailing racial prejudices of the time and denying basic human rights to African Americans.