Aristotle's three elements account of change is largely motivated and influenced by the accounts of his predecessors such as Plato, Mellitus and Parmenides who had great difficulty in their accounts to answer whether there was one thing (principle) or number, how many and whether they are likely to change. Plato asserts that real things do not change outside the physical world of forms, Democritus is an atomist while Parmenides, as a monist, denies change altogether. Believing that his predecessors were erroneously led astray in this argument due to their inexperience, Aristotle begins to separate his view from theirs and form his own opinion about change within nature. He does this primarily by questioning Parmenides' essential assertion that change is impossible: "something comes from what is or from what is not." Attempting to resolve this difficulty, he suggests a third claim that, apart from the principles of deprivation, it is what disappears and what forms is what ultimately becomes, or the by-product of change itself. He believes that there must be something known as matter underlying them and which is the key factor in his attempts to overcome Parmenides' paradox. Parmenides' hypothesis which denies change and proclaims that things are only two ways in which something can exist and that all change is an illusion. Elements come from their opposites, like light to darkness, believing that things can only come from what is or what is not. With the appearance of simple things, one thing remains as light, while darkness will not. Simply put, this argument does not account for compound change or plurality of outcomes apart from opposites and Aristotle considers neither of these to be possible and...... middle of paper.. .... is a theory according to which matter is conserved. Although its form may change, gaining something new and losing something it previously held, the essential matter involved in the change remains a constant variable. Some object that in analyzing this solution it seems that Aristotle is simply arguing for Parmenides' position by complicating the original scenario with vague formulation and an overly broad notion of change in nature. While Parmenides seems to be attempting to describe the change granted to an object as an illusion, Aristotle both describes the change and includes the object that the change influences. However, thinking from this angle discredits the advance of Aristotle's argument. Not only did he ultimately avoid the dilemma, but he clearly defined and stated the three fundamental principles necessary for change in nature..