Of course, a just man such as yourself would never cheat on a school assignment. But just in case, it seems to me that your questions do on not have a right or wrong answer, but depend on your interpretation of the work, confirming Glaucon's definition of justice as something that must be good for its own sake and good for its consequences. The second question is more open to interpretation than the first. It may help to know that Glaucon and Adeimantus are often referred to as the "immoralists," or their position as the "immoralist position." So, when they discuss "justice" or the "just man," this can also be read as "morality" or the "moral" or "good" man. The breakdown between "justice" and "morality" is important to note. There are a few ways to perceive the immoralist's challange to Socrates. On the most basic level, Socrates wants to win the argument. So what is at stake would be his authority as a philospoher. But you are never going to get an A for taking this position; a good thing must indeed be good for its consequences. I see two other possible "stakes" from the challange: 1) Socrates is wrong in that it is impossible to talk about or define "justice," since what we say is motivated by a desire to appear "just" in order to gain position or reputation among those who hear the debate, and 2) Socrates is wrong because the entire concept of "justice" or "morality" is flawed. Choosing either one of these "stakes" will alter how you defend whether or not you feel Socrates met the challange.
As you know from your reading, Socrates does not respond to the challange directly. Instead, he begins to analyze hypothetical city-states he feels would be considered "just" in order to compare them or use them as a template for an understanding of the "just" man. Here is where the distinction between "justice" in a political body and "morality" in an individual becomes important. Your instructor is attempting, rather unjustly, to get you to write about a question that philospohers have been arguing about since The Republic was written, namely: whether the city-state is a suitable stand-in for the individual. If you feel that relavent similarities can be drawn from Socrates' description of ideal city-states to the morality of a single agent, then more than likely you should argue that Socrates does meet the challenge. If you feel that the comparison does not fit at all or in part, you should argue that Socrates fails.
Good luck on your paper.:wildone: