The argument from ignorance that knowledge conclusion is derived from ignorance premises is claimed to be fallacious by many logicians such as I. Copi. According to them, some arguments from ignorance which seem to be acceptable are not really the arguments from ignorance. They say that such arguments have implicitly conditional knowledge premise. Against them, I argue that every argument from ignorance can be interpreted as having a hidden conditional premise, and that every argument from ignorance is not fallacious. I propose the criterion to judge which argument from ignorance is fallacious and which is persuasive. In particular, I argue that social contexts play a crucial role to judge whether a practical argument is fallacious or not.