The problem with sceptical argument is that it formulates hypothesis on the basis of

conclusions that are vague or does not give much insight to the actual knowledge
associated with it. The brain in vat argument is a popular example of such kind of
hypothesis.
The brain-in-a-vat or commonly known as BIV argument is a sceptical hypothesis
related to the external world and delusions. The argument states that it is
impossible for a brain in a vat to know the hypothesis as false, since if it were true,
the experiences would replicate that of the real world. Hence according to the
hypothesis it is not possible for one to know if it exists in a real world or contained in
a jar. The argument emphasize on the notion that a persons mental state depends
upon its external environment.
In response to this hypothesis, consider a scenario in Mars where there are no trees
and hence Martians would not possess any knowledge thereof. If a Martian associate
a blob of paint with a tree, then its brain will perceive such a blob with tree due to
lack of causal connection between the perceived image and the actual tree.
Similarly, according to the argument if I were a brain in vat, my mental vision of tree
would be as inaccurate as that of Martian due to lack of causal contact with the
actual object.
In objection of this argument, philosophers believe that this hypothesis lack any
empirical evidence that supports the fact that whether we are BIVs or not, leaving
the hypothesis and the argument worthless. While some philosophers totally discard
the idea, there are few who believe in the significant nature of this argument and
the possibility of such manifestation in metaphysics. It is seen as challenge in the
cognitive science and opens mind for endless possibilities of human cognition.