This brilliant study of the Phaedo ends up to me as being rather an anti-climax: it applies modern analytical logic to the Phaedo, that is: not reading Plato on his own terms but disparaging his so-called faults of logic:
An example of this is on page 192 where Bostock writes that:
"The long final argument, then, turns out in the end to be something of an anticlimax. We have laboured through a lengthy, and often perplexing, discussion of causation which attempts to substantiate the principle that the true cause of a thing's being P must itself have the property of being P, and must have it essentially. But even if this principle is granted, and it is granted also that the soul is the true cause of life, still the desired conclusion will not follow. For to say that life is an essential property of the soul is just to say that the soul must be alive so long as it exists, and if we regard this as claiming that the soul is 'immortal' ('deathless'), then certainly the word 'immortal' is being used in an unusual sense. But Plato has failed to notice this. Taking it for granted that the word is being used in its usual sense, he thinks it must obviously follow that the soul exists for ever. And I am afraid that this is simply a mistake which we can do nothing to put right."