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

The argument represents the "begging the claim" fallacy.

Explanation:

What is the "begging the claim" fallacy?

The "begging the claim" fallacy is a fallacy which implies the conclusion without giving arguments or evidence - it simply jumps to the conclusion, it suggests the question to be asked and it answers it without even making a discussion about it or providing arguments.

Basically, the person assumes the question and then answers it, providing the conclusion for the issue they have identified themselves.

This is illustrated by the following statement in the passage: "the question before us is..." -> how does the speaker know what is the question at stake? Then, the speaker proceeds to giving a conclusion to the statement: "We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included under the word citizens"

-> How does the speaker know this? First, the speaker assumed which was the question, then the speaker assumed they knew what others thought or intended.

This obviously is a fallacy.

the answer is d.los mismo