Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoniae Hypotyposes 2.13.169

[169] But, to pass over these objections also, the argument which deduces what is non-evident by means of pre-evident premisses is indiscoverable. For if the inference follows from the combination of its premisses, and what follows and forms the consequent is relative and relative to the antecedent, and relatives are apprehended, as we have shown, ¹ simultaneously,— then, if the conclusion is non-evident, the premisses also will be non-evident, while if the premisses are pre-evident the conclusion also will be pre-evident, as being apprehended along with the pre-evident premisses, so that no longer is there a deduction of what is non-evident from pre-evident premisses.