According to the second principle of the Four Principles of Socratic/Platonic Reasoning, personal perceptions of what is admirable or not-admirable in very clear concrete cases are the most reliable basis for all moral knowledge.
Socratic questioning focuses on uncovering conflicts within a single individual's own thought -- more specifically, conflicts between these personal perceptions in very clear concrete cases, on the one hand, and general principles or concepts that this individual thinks she believes in
For example, Polemarchos first thinks he believes that rightness consists in following the general principle, "Return to each what belongs to him." But when it comes to the concrete case of the weapons-owner gone insane, his personal perception tells him that it would very clearly not be admirable to follow the rule "return belongings" to the insane person.
Socratic reasoning instructs a person to always give preference to personal perceptions in clear concrete cases over the general principle. In case of a conflict, assume that the personal perception is reliable, and the general principle has been found to be not completely reliable.
But for this to work, it has to be very obvious to Polemarchos that returning weapons to an insane person is not admirable, so we need a story which is not in any way problematic or problematic, so that Polemarchos' perceptions themselves allow no room for doubt, or confusion, or questioning about whether this would be admirable.
Modern love for moral controversy might lead someone to add details to the story to make it not so clear: It is uncertain whether the person is really insane, or what he wants to do with the weapons. There are enemies attacking the town and having the weapons is the only way the man can escape certain death. And so on. Adding details in this way would make the story more interesting to those who like controversy, but it would render it useless to Socratic discussion, because it would fail to give Polemarchos very clear indications that there is something inadequate about the general rule "return belongings." Using complicated and problematic stories like this as the ultimate basis for moral knowledge would be like using data from faulty thermometers as a basis for scientific theory.
Adding these kinds of detail to the story would make it more plausible for Polemarchos to say that it would indeed be proper to observe the rule "return belongings," in this case. If he is really attached to this rule for some reason, he could then just use this story as an occasion for asserting that this is indeed an invariable rule.
This is what often happens in Socratic discussion papers. The author tells a rather complicated story giving some details that indicate it would be admirable to do X, but then adding other details indicating it might not be admirable to do X. This then leads to some discussion about whether doing X is admirable or not admirable. Or it just serves as an occasion for the author just to reassert some principle she strongly believes in.
So if you find yourself tempted to add details to a story to make it more controversial and interesting, resist the temptation, and do the opposite. Add details that make it more and more obvious that something in the story in clearly not admirable. In the case of the weapons-owner gone insane, for example, you can add: He's been clearly acting insane for months; there is no danger from attacking enemies: he is dragging is little daughter behind him saying he wants to use the weapons to kill her; and so on.
Telling stories where it is not obvious what is admirable and not admirable
-- might end up just inconclusively, feeding the idea that we can't really have clear concepts representing something only and always admirable.
--- might end up sidetracking the author into discussions trying to resolve the moral dilemma posed by the complex story.
-- might be used as occasions for asserting some general rule she believes in (concerning controversial issues like abortion, capital punishment, etc.), when the purpose of Socratic reasoning is to question such general rules.
None of these three alternatives offers anything useful for the goal of describing the essence of V always and only admirable.