Question

the claim in this excerpt is that one person cannot specialize in more than one profession or art. now nothing can be more important than that the work of a soldier should be well done. but is war an art so easily acquired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman, or shoemaker, or other artisan, although no one in the world would be a good dice or draught player who merely took up the game as a recreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself to this and nothing else? no tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. -the republic, plato. how does the speaker develop the argument in the excerpt? by using inductive reasoning to go from specific observations to a broad conclusion by using deductive reasoning to go from general premises to a specific conclusion by asking a rhetorical question of an authority figure to appeal to ethos by using antithesis to inspire an emotional response that appeals to pathos

Explanation:

The speaker starts with the general idea that a soldier's work should be well - done and then uses the example of a dice or draught player who needs long - term devotion to be good. This is moving from a general premise (the importance of focus in a profession) to a specific conclusion (a person can't be good at multiple things without full devotion). Inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, and there is no use of rhetorical questions to appeal to ethos or antithesis to appeal to pathos.

Answer:

by using deductive reasoning to go from general premises to a specific conclusion