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?
The argument assumes that the group is not included among constitutional citizens, then uses that assumption to conclude that its members cannot claim citizens’ rights. It does not provide independent support for the key claim that they were excluded. This is begging the claim: the conclusion is treated as though it were already established.
AI-written and checked against the verified answer.