Plato's Argument Analysis

To Plato, there existed fundamental patterns in the universe, Forms so pure and unblemished that most people will never know them, even as they act as existence in its purest form. All around us, everyday objects toe the line between these pure existences, never committing to one yet never abandoning one. To those few who could gaze upon these paradigms and look beyond the pale imitations in every object, Plato gave the name Philosophers. In the Book V of the Republic, Plato’s definition of philosophers is essential in illustrating the closest possible parallel in real life to his model city by taking account of the occasion of the argument and acting as the foundation of his argument.
One of the main reasons Plato delves into this explanation
Viewed in the light of the Toulmin method, Plato’s definition seems to serve as the foundation of his argument. Expressed as concisely as possible, Plato’s claim is that philosopher-kings would be the best way to bring about his ideal society. Without anything to back that up, however, the claim, instead of answering any questions, just makes new ones. What is a philosopher king? Why are philosopher-kings the best conduit for the utopia? To answer these questions, Plato begins explaining his argument much in the same way one constructs a tower: from the foundation. Plato starts by singling out a certain group of people to be “philosophers.” Philosophers are people who have the desire and ability to comprehend the true Forms of the world. Following up on the limits, Plato reasons out what traits such a nature would necessarily include, such as honesty. With this, the foundation, or grounds, of the argument is complete. Although not necessarily irrefutable, this definition is the start of the entire
Why is the type of philosopher is described the best candidate? In order to complete the argument, a warrant is required, so an assumption is made: the traits the philosopher Plato defines has makes it suitable for the role of bringing about the utopia. Without the clarification made in Plato’s definition, the assumption would have no basis to work off from to reach the claim, and the claim would have no support, or in other words, people would just laugh at Plato if he stated the assumption and his assertion without actually creating a