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 this excerpt? by using antithesis to inspire an emotional response that appeals to pathos by asking a rhetorical question of an authority figure to appeal to ethos 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

Explanation:

The passage starts with a general statement about the importance of a soldier's work being well - done. Then it gives specific examples like a person cannot be a good dice or draught player without early devotion, and tools are useless to an unskilled person. This is inductive reasoning as it moves from specific observations to a broad conclusion about specialization. There is no use of antithesis, no rhetorical question to an authority figure, and no deductive reasoning from general to specific.

Answer:

C. by using inductive reasoning to go from specific observations to a broad conclusion