Socrates claims that it is unlikely that he is corrupting the youth of the city as corruption occurs through the majority where as he, Socrates, is a minority. This can be said to be the weakest argument Socrates provides as it is based more on analogy than anything else. To explain his point Socrates states that horse breeders improve horses where as horse users corrupt them, but there are more horse users than horse breeders. Therefore, Socrates claims that improvement comes from the minority and corruption from the majority. Socrates argues that it is less likely that he has corrupted the youth of Athens compared to the larger group of Athenians who include politicians, jurymen, educators and council members.

Socrates states that the jury must decide that either Socrates corrupts the youth or Socrates does not corrupt the youth. He then states that if he is corrupting the youth of the city he could be doing this willingly or unwillingly. He states that if he is guilty of corrupting the youth unwillingly or unknowingly he cannot be punished and only has to be given corrective instructions. Socrates claims that he is guilty only if he is corrupting the youth intentionally and willingly. Socrates argues his prosecutors do not have enough interest in the youth to know how they might be improved. Further, his presence at the trial shows that his prosecutors presuppose he willingly corrupts the youth without providing any formal justification for this assumption.