 NRNB supposes that the skeptic universally suspends assent as a natural, psychological reaction to equally convincing (or equipollent) and opposing arguments. Universal suspension, on this view, is not a prescription justified through the argument that one ought to suspend assent about everything because knowledge is impossible. Rather, since the skeptic’s belief-forming faculties are paralyzed in the face of opposing reasons, she acts by impulse, pursuing what appears appropriate (see sect. 5.1). On an NRNB interpretation Arcesilaus’ commitments to [ii] universal suspension and [iii] a practical criterion were founded neither on belief nor on a prior consideration of reasons (see e.g., Ioppolo 1986; 2009; 2018).