  The NRNB view of Arcesilaus argues that he was not committed to inapprehensibility and universal suspension, as a prescriptive claim about the irrationality of assent (see [7] in sect. 3). On this view, the two sources for the anti-Stoic arguments still imply that Arcesilaus was ‘committed’ to universal suspension, but this is understood as the descriptive claim that the skeptic does not assent to anything due to the balance of opposing arguments; and he was committed to it only in the sense that he acted in accordance with his unreflective impressions (see sect. 5.1 below). Thus, there is no conflict between the anti-Stoic sources, Sextus and Cicero, and those that report that Arcesilaus’ universal suspension is caused by the equipollence of arguments without mentioning his criticism of Stoic epistemology (viz., Diogenes Laertius 4.28, Cicero Academica 1.45, &amp; Sextus Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1.232).