Two argumentative contrivances lie at the heart of Socrates’s claim: (1) An analogy: Rhetoric is an art analogous to cooking (and cooking is the opposite of medicine). (2) An assumption: Belief can be separated from knowledge. The analogy depends upon the assumption. Which is to say, if I am to believe that rhetoric is analogous to cooking, I must assume that these two disciplines rely upon belief while other disciplines rely on knowledge. (In Aristotle’s terms, the analogy makes an enthymematic connection that rests upon an assumption.) Gorgias grants the analogy and the assumption. Can we doubt them? How? What arguments can you think of to discount these two supporting pillars? If we can doubt them, must we also discount Socrates’s arguments about rhetoric and its relationship to “the good”? If we cannot doubt them, must we accept Socrates’s argument about the value of rhetoric?