They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. - Dred Scott v. Sandford, Supreme Court of the United States What type of fallacy or faulty reasoning is used in this passage?

A. ad populum.

B. begging the claim.

C. genetic fallacy.

D. hasty generalization.

On this assignment (ed2020) Core English, there are 2 questions that seems the same but the question that comes first's answer is A, the question that comes a bit later's answer is D.

The correct answer is option A. Ad populum.

Explanation:

We are talking about the well-known Dred Scott vs Sandford case. In which the Supreme Court of the Unites States decided on not recognizing citizenship on african-american people. The resolution increased the tension in the country so much that this case is known as a factor that led to American Civil War.

The reasoning the Supreme Court of the Unites States followed was not a valid one, which makes it a fallacy.

Even though, the Supreme Court assumed in all the case, but not explicitly said in this extract of the reasoning, that the origins of dark-skinned people were from slaves, so the place where they were born did not changed their constitution as slaves, like their parents. Then it is not a Genetic Fallacy, which consists in assuming that the origin of someone determines its composition or behavior. The reasoning is not mentioning, for instance: "As their parents are negro and therefore slaves, so Dred Scott is also a slave".

Also, in this reasoning they are not making a circular argument, also known as the Begging the claim fallacy, mentioned in option B, which means that the conclusion is included in the premise, because they are not saying, for instance, "As they are negro race they can't have citizenship, so as they are negro race they do not have citizenship".

Neither they are appealing based one unique case or a not significant amount of cases, as established in the Hasty Generalization fallacy, mentioned in option D. Because they are not saying "You are negro and you are not a citizen of United States, so all negros are not citizens".

Intead, the reasoning the Supreme Court is appealing in the excerpt is to what most civilized Goverments do, that is why the correct answer is option A. Ad populum fallacy, mentioned in option A, in which there is an appeal of what most people do or think, and based on that you get the conclusion. The Supreme Court mention that in "Any part of the civilized world" be supposed to embrace the negro race, and so they are "excluded from civilized Goverments", so, as United States is also a civilized Goverment, they concluded that they should not embrace negro race either. This is an Ad Populum Fallacy.