Question

Hello Rabbi!
The Rabbi discusses in the fifth notebook, and also in his book The First Existent, the purpose of the creation of the world. The Rabbi raised three possibilities, as he wrote:

1. Not to create us and the universe at all.
2. To create us and the universe perfect from the outset (without any need for free will).
3. To create the universe as it is, and us with free will. The Holy One, blessed be He, chose the third option, and that means that the purpose depends on our choices (otherwise the second option would have been preferable), and it also means that the purpose lies outside us and outside the world (otherwise the first option would have been sufficient).

The Rabbi decided in favor of the third possibility, writing:
Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, not create the world in such a way that this goal would be achieved automatically (by creating us or the world perfect from the outset), and instead leave it to us? The only possibility is that this goal is specifically connected to our decisions and our choice; that is, it is important that we accomplish it through our own free decision. And that (and only that) could not have been done without us. Any goal that is not connected to our free will could have been achieved directly by Him, and there would have been no need for us at all.
On the face of it, there seems to be a problem of begging the question in the Rabbi’s words. It may be that the world was created like the second possibility—a perfect world—and a perfect world is דווקא one with free will, but there is no additional purpose beyond the very existence of the world itself. God “lacked,” as it were, such a world, and that is the reason for creation, nothing more.
When the Rabbi presented the third possibility, his words assume that the world as it is is not perfect, but that very claim is the view underlying the second possibility. If so, how can the Rabbi reject the second possibility by using a different foundational assumption that proves nothing against the second possibility? Thank you.