  The task of reconstructing Zeno’s arguments is sometimes  insufficiently distinguished from the task of developing responses to them. How one reconstructs Zeno’s reasoning certainly determines to  some extent what will constitute an effective response. The danger is that one’s idea of how to formulate an effective response may affect  one’s reconstruction of Zeno’s actual reasoning, particularly if one  imports into his arguments concepts more developed or precise than  the ones with which he was actually operating. In some cases, as with the one called the Achilles, the paradox’s power derives to a  significant extent from the very simplicity of the notions it  deploys. The reconstructions provided here therefore aim to preserve  something of the manner of Zeno’s own argumentation as we know it  from verbatim quotation of at least portions of some of the preserved paradoxes. More formal reconstructions are possible and available. As already noted, at least one effort at improving Zeno’s argumentation  was already known to Aristotle. But such efforts can come at the cost of historical accuracy, which is the primary goal of this article.  How it might be possible to improve Zeno’s arguments will be left to  others. Since it is also essential to appreciate just how much (or  how little) we know of Zeno’s arguments, the primary evidence for  each major argument is presented along with a reconstruction.