I am going to paraphrase the main argument in Plato’s Apology, which is “Anyone who intentionally corrupts his associates runs the risk of being harmed by them. No one intentionally wants to risk being harmed by his associates. Thus, No one intentionally corrupts his associates”. The main argument in Plato’s Apology can be defined as a deductive argument. This argument would also be a valid deductive argument. I would also classify this argument as a categorical syllogism because of the use of the word “no”. The #1 reason this argument is deductive is because given that the premises are true it necessarily follows that the conclusion also be true. The #2 reason this argument is valid is that given that the premises are true it is impossible
