 However, the skeptic might not be vulnerable to this objection. First, the Five Modes can be construed as dialectical, invoking dogmatic theories of justification (Striker 2004). Second, they might be broader in scope. 5–1 and 5–3 explore disagreement and relativity. Skeptical examination often begins with the Mode of Disagreement: different answers to a given question are surveyed, and the conflict between them is observed. The interpretation of 5–1 hangs, for the most part, on the question of whether anepikriton should be translated as ‘undecided’ or ‘undecidable’ (Barnes 1990). It would be dogmatic to claim that matters are undecidable. The Pyrrhonist must prefer the idea that, up to now, matters have not been decided. In applying the Mode of Disagreement, skeptics can either record a conflicting argument that others have formulated or come up with an argument that disagrees with a view formulated by a dogmatist (cf. Sienkiewicz 2019, 47–51). This leads to the question of whether something can be found that would decide matters, and thus to the application of further modes. Scholars have observed that 5–3, the Mode of Relativity, does not really fit into the Five Modes. However, the Five Modes could be designed to supersede and include the Ten Modes, and 5–3 might be viewed as capturing the common thread of the Ten Modes. With the help of 5–3, the skeptic can argue that the premises that theorists employ are formulated from particular points of view, in particular contexts, and so on (for a reading that emphasizes the role of the first mode at the expense of the role of the third, cf. Sienkiewicz 2019).