The following exercise I found in a book in which I found errors, I think that in the following exercise I can remove hypothesis.
Let $E$ be a infinite dimensional normed space, suppose that $E$ is separable or reflexive. Show that there exists a senquence $(x_{n}')\subseteq E'$ such that $\left\|x_{n}'\right\|=1$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, and $x_{n}'\overset{w^{*}}{\rightarrow} 0$ (that is, $x_{n}'(x)\rightarrow 0$ for all $x \in E$).
The problem: I tink that the hypothesis that $E$ is separable or reflexive can be removed. I want to know if my thinking is correct?
My attepmt: Assuming we only have $E$ infinite dimensional normed vector space, we denote $S=\left\{x'\in E'\: :\: \left\|x'\right\|=1\right\}$, $\overline{B'}=\left\{x'\in E'\: :\: \left\|x'\right\|\leq 1\right\}$, and $\sigma(E',E)$ the weak$^{*}$ topology in $E'$. We know that $$\overline{S}^{\sigma(E',E)}=\overline{B'} \tag{$\bigstar$}$$ where $\overline{S}^{\sigma(E',E)}$ is the closure of $S$ respect to topology $\sigma(E',E)$. (for a proof of ($\bigstar$) see this post ).
Therefore, $0\in \overline{S}^{\sigma(E',E)}$, then there exists $(x_{n}')\subseteq S$ such that $x_{n}'\rightarrow 0$ in the topology $\sigma(E',E)$, that is, $\left\|x_{n}'\right\|=1$ and $x_{n}'\overset{w^{*}}{\rightarrow} 0$.
Remark: Note that in my attempt I do not use the fact that $E$ is separable or reflexive. Am I making any mistakes?.
Addendum
The comment of @GiuseppeNegro is correct, but we know that $\overline{B}'$ is $\sigma(E', E)$-compact. If $E$ is separable, then we know that $\overline{B}'$ is metrizable with induced topology of $\sigma(E', E)$. Therefore, my attempt is the proof for the case $E$ separable.
The problem is when $E$ is reflexive. I do not find a relation between reflexivity and metrizable. I'm thinking that when $E$ is reflexive it's not true that $\overline{B}'$ is $\sigma(E', E)$-metrisable, but I can not find a counter-example.