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.

What fallacy can you identify and discredit to develop a counterclaim to this claim?

the idea that citizens have rights and privileges that are guaranteed in the Constitution
the idea that noncitizens cannot claim certain rights and privileges in the Constitution
the idea that the plaintiff considers himself a citizen and therefore has rights and privileges
the idea that African American people are inferior based on perceptions from an earlier time

Read this excerpt from "herd about the flu." the flu shot prevent huge numbers of infections. even when it doesn't fully prevent infection in every person, the shot makes any flu infection less serious. on a global scale, the vaccine can reduce the number of infections only if most people in the community take it. that's because vaccines need to reach enough people to achieve a "herd immunity," the level of immunity needed to prevent the virus from spreading. if too few people get the vaccine, the people who receive it may not be well protected against infection. so the next time you are at the drugstore, and you see no flu shots available, think about the reasons behind it. drug makers are scared to make too many flu shots because they could lose too much money. they then make fewer flu shots and the effect of the flu shots becomes weaker because not enough people take it. people become more reluctant to take the flu shot since they don't think it will fully work. the demand goes down further and the flu companies make even fewer shots the next year. this could continue until the community changes its mind and we all get the flu shot. "that is a community responsibility," says the president of merck, one of the two remaining flu vaccine manufacturers. which argument best supports the passage's claim that more people should get the flu vaccine to stop the virus from spreading? 1.if too few people get the vaccine, the people who receive it may not be well protected against infection 2. so the next time you are at the drugstore, and you see no flu shots available, think about the reasons behind it. 3.people become more reluctant to take the flu shot since they don’t think it will fully work. 4.drug makers are scared to make too many flu shots because they could lose too much money.