A second inquiry by Arnim rivalled Lutoslawski's for the title of the most maligned work in the history of the stylistic method. This seems rather ironical in view of the fact that its express aim was to endow the chronological conclusions previously arrived at by the stylistic method with such a conclusive force that ‘any opposition would be impossible’. As it was, they did not have this force, simply because they were not absolute. In other words, while they showed that it was probable that certain dialogues belonged together by reason of a common possession of particular stylistic features, they did not show that different groupings according to other features were impossible. Although scholars had found, for instance, that a large number of features connected Soph, and Pol. to the Phil., Tim. and Laws and had consequently assumed their temporal proximity, they had never thought of investigating how many features connected these same two dialogues to, say, Hipp. Mi., Phdo and Crat. Yet it was theoretically possible that such an investigation would unearth a larger number of features than in the former case, and the whole chronological order would have to be revised.

This was the doubt which Arnim wished to eliminate. It meant that every dialogue would have to be compared with every other dialogue, a task which would occupy the lifetimes of several investigators, if the material were to be every possible feature of style. However, it did not have to be, since there existed a smaller, yet self-contained body of material to work on in the reply formulae.