The following paper is classified under the category of studies interested in “fallacies" from an argumentative stand-point, and its purpose to prove that argument, whatever its source is, cannot be classified as either accurate or inaccurate.
It is the context which determines whether to include argument in the category of invalid or valid fallacies. The context, as a primary factor in the analysis and classification of argument, is considered a primary feature of the modern dialectical pragmatics in the field of argumentation; it is also the most important element that these shidies impose on the old classical reflections interested in fallacies.
Aristotle's logic puts fixed bases for what he called “sophistical refutations" and influenced all those who came after him until the advent of the argument school with Perlman where liberated from the pre-fixed determination and emerged as a leading contend in the modern dialectical arguments that put open and variable basics to fallacies, governed only by the power of context .
This paper is merely descriptive, aiming at either supporting the modern dialectical approach in dealing with this controversial topic “fallacies" or showing its limitation. Again, the approach to the topic tries to benefit from the American experience in the field of the argumentative classification of fallacies and looks for new theoretical and experimental perspectives to give the speaker a more important dimension as he is the context maker at all times.