Meno's Paradox

The paradox arises for people who lack a concept of "known unknowns" as distinct from "unknown unknowns".  If our knowledge of x can only be in the state of "we know what x is and everything about it" or "we don't know anything about x and aren't even aware that anything like x exists", then the reasoning is all correct.  However, for many things, that's a false binary: there are a lot of intermediate states between "zero knowledge of the concept of x" and "100% knowledge of x".

I don't see how 3 follows.

If you know how to solve this paradox, inquiry is unnecessary.

If you do not know how to solve this paradox, then inquiry is impossible.^[1]

So why are you asking?

1. ^{^}

   Of course it's not impossible.

I think the paradox goes away with better models of "know" and "inquire".  Neither knowing nor not-knowing is an actual state one can have.  There is only a multiplicity of models with varying degrees of applicability to some predicted experience.  You CAN solicit updates and use experiences to update your models and your meta-model of the applicability of those models to specific questions.