Should Locke be required to refute the radical sceptic? If so, why? Or is it appropriate to dismiss radical sceptics of that kind?

Provide an argued response to the following:

“Locke seems to dismiss the radical sceptic when he says that he won’t be bothered to argue against people who say that we cannot know whether anything exists at all. Is this a fair move on Locke’s part? Should Locke be required to refute the radical sceptic? If so, why? Or is it appropriate to dismiss radical sceptics of that kind? Give reasons.”