Which type of evidence indicates that a conclusion may be true but lacks direct proof?

Circumstantial evidence is relevant in situations where direct proof is absent. This type of evidence relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion, suggesting that something may be true based on the circumstances or context surrounding an event. For example, if someone is seen leaving a location where a crime occurred shortly thereafter, that circumstantial evidence can imply their possible involvement, even if it does not directly prove it.

In contrast, direct evidence provides immediate proof of a fact, such as an eyewitness account directly observing an event. Conclusive evidence definitively establishes a fact without ambiguity, and affirmative evidence is often used in legal contexts to support a particular claim but does not inherently imply a lack of direct proof. Thus, circumstantial evidence is uniquely positioned to suggest conclusions based on logical deductions rather than outright proof.