Final answer:
Elias would likely argue that two people can make a difference by highlighting how individual actions can lead to collective impact and using historical examples and analogies to refute the idea that large numbers are required to effect change.
Step-by-step explanation:
When confronted with the argument that two people cannot make a credible difference in the world, Elias might respond by drawing on the examples provided in the references. He could challenge the notion with the argument that every major movement or change in history began with the actions and decisions of a few individuals. Elias could cite the quote 'Because it cannot be helped as they are stronger than women.' and the subsequent rebuttal 'A lion is stronger than a man, but it does not enable him to dominate the human race.' This example illustrates that strength or numbers alone do not determine influence or ability to initiate change.
Furthermore, Elias could evoke Johnson's refute of a counterclaim to the Great Society by saying, 'We have the power to shape the civilization that we want.' This suggests that collective efforts, even if started by few, have the potential to gather momentum and effect significant change. Finally, Elias could address the practical aspect of making a difference by analogizing the need for physical action to move the eight ball in a game of pool: 'In order to move the eight ball you need another physical object like a stick or a hand.' Implying that action, no matter how minor, is required to instigate change.