  This interpretation takes Sextus to imply that Arcesilaus’ commitment to a descriptive version of universal suspension is prior to his anti-Stoic argument (M. 7.156–7), outlined above in sect. 3 (see e.g., Ioppolo 2002; 2009). In this argument he holds that the Stoic who concedes the non-existence of cognitive impressions is forced to conclude that it is rational to ‘withhold assent’ (‘asugkatathetein’) about everything (see [10] below). This conclusion is sufficient to oppose the Stoic thesis that some assents are rational. The full version of the argument outlined in sect. 3 is: