Moving on to The Last Days of Socrates

I read the warning prior to reading Euthypro that this is not to be read like a book, as it does not have a plot line. Basically, it is the outline of an argument. I must admit by the end of the dialogue, I too like Euthypro wanted to scream; Socrates has a way of getting under your skin, like a burrowing mite.

Maybe it would be best to review deductive reasoning with your students before reading. That way they are aware of the argument and its twisting and turnings.
The basic argument of Euthypro is "what is Holy?" Remember, we aren't speaking of holy to our God, but holy to the Greek Gods.

The Modus Ponens for deductive reasoning assumes
"If p is true then Q occurs or is true
p.
Therefore, q occurs
(Rulebook of Arguments p38.)

Euthypro attempts to define holy as that which appeases all the gods collectively.

Used to define holiness, it would look like this:
If something appeals to all gods, than it is holy
Something appeals to the gods
Then it is holy.

Socrates argues that Euthypro can't prove that prosecuting his father for the murder of his hired hand appeases the gods. Therefore, we can't assume it is holy.

They than attempt to define holy. This proves very difficult to do. They ultimately prove that holy is a branch of justice.

Not all just things are holy
It is just
Then it might not be holy.

Holy is just a part of the whole concept of justice.

An exhausted Euthypro leaves before they can define holy as it relates to justice and the reader probably by now has a headache.

Perhaps in the Apology we'll find the definition of what Socrates considers holy.