We examine the Elenchus principle by comparing responses to two prompts exploring the efficiency of heterogeneous catalysts. The Socratic prompt, "If heterogeneous catalysts work solely by lowering activation energy, why do surface morphology and electronic structure affect their efficiency?", challenges the model to scrutinize an implicit assumption and construct a more nuanced explanation. In response, the model broadens the discussion beyond activation energy, stating: "While lowering activation energy is a key function, other factors such as surface morphology and electronic structure critically determine catalytic performance." It then introduces surface morphology and electronic structure as critical factors influencing catalytic efficiency, explaining that "Catalysts with high surface area provide more active sites for reactions, while surface defects can act as additional catalytic centers." Additionally, it elaborates on electronic properties by stating: "Metals with partially filled d-orbitals, such as platinum, facilitate electron transfer, improving catalytic activity, whereas non-metallic catalysts rely more on charge polarization effects." By questioning the sufficiency of the initial assumption, the Socratic approach compels the model to explore causal mechanisms in catalysis rather than merely stating textbook definitions. In contrast, the non-Socratic prompt, "How do heterogeneous catalysts lower activation energy?", elicits a structured yet static explanation. The model describes fundamental catalytic principles, outlining adsorption, transition state stabilization, and product desorption as key steps. It presents a mechanistic summary, stating: "Heterogeneous catalysts lower activation energy by providing a surface for reactants to adsorb, stabilizing the transition state, and facilitating desorption of the products." However, it does not interrogate why certain catalysts perform better than others or explore the role of catalyst design parameters such as surface area and electronic effects. The response lacks critical probing, as it does not evaluate whether the standard explanation is complete or consider how modifications influence catalytic behavior. Both responses provide technically correct information, but the Socratic prompt demonstrates the core strength of Elenchus-it challenges assumptions, identifies gaps in reasoning, and refines explanations through systematic inquiry. This is evident in how the Socratic response extends beyond activation energy, incorporating surface structure, electronic effects, and materialdependent efficiency trends, while the non-Socratic response remains at a mechanistic description level without deeper interrogation. This comparison highlights how Socratic questioning fosters a more investigative and analytical approach, which is particularly valuable in catalysis research, where optimizing efficiency requires understanding beyond conventional mechanistic summaries.