Three brothers are imagined. The first grows up obedient, the second grows up disobedient, and the third dies as a young child. The dialogue proposes different outcomes, then asks which outcome would have been best for each individual.
The initial division:
1. First: reaches adulthood and obeys.
2. Second: reaches adulthood and disobeys.
3. Third: dies before maturity.
The argument compares people whose circumstances differ. Its force depends on whether the principle invoked for one brother can be applied consistently to the others. The illustration examines a particular theological thesis; it is not a definitive ruling about every child who dies young.