Aristotle's Virtue is Knowledge and the Practical and Theoretical Knowledge

The expectation is that the weekly essay assignments are formal essays. That means an introduction, a main body, and a conclusion. General rule for the main body is that the number of paragraphs corresponds to the number of points being made. I don't think you can answer these questions completely, while adhering to the above, in less than two full pages typed double-spaced.
Assignment E6: Answer ONE of the following.
6A. The central tenet of Socratic ethics is “virtue is knowledge.” “Virtue” is to be thought of as areté or “the peculiar excellence of a thing.” In other words, just as we say a tool is useful in virtue of the way it performs a proper function, so also a person’s virtue is his or her peculiar excellence or proper function. What, then, is the source of the lack of excellence or areté in a person? Why is the lack of areté considered “bad”?
The following passage is background info. for 6A: "I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. Rather than a strict paradox, the term refers to either of two surprising and unacceptable conclusions drawn from the Socratic dialogues of Plato: (i) the startling consequence of Socrates's association of knowledge and virtue, according to which nobody ever does wrong knowingly; (ii) the view that nobody knows what they mean when they use a term unless they can provide an explicit definition of it. Although this last is sometimes called the Socratic fallacy, this can be regarded as being uncharitable to Socrates, whose concern was not simply with meaning, but more with notions like justice or reason, for which our inability to provide principles may well reflect ignorance and muddle. [On the first issue, see akrasia.]
6B. Clarify as much as possible Aristotle’s distinction between practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Does an understanding of this distinction help account for why persons who know certain habits or behaviors are harmful, still persist in those behaviors? Relate your analysis to a defense of the Socratic Paradox. Contrast this to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s conclusion, in his Notes From Underground, “And what if it so happens that a man’s advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous.” Can you construct any specific examples of which Dostoyevsky might have in mind?
The following passage is background info. for 6B: “Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so to say, thought necessity, he would begin doing good? Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure innocent child!” Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes From Underground
Actually, both provided texts are needed for 6B. As for 6A, the question isn't about the Socratic Paradox, but the conclusion that nobody ever does wrong knowingly is something to be borne in mind in answering 6A
Some additions