circumstantial evidence

USAGE SUMMARY

"circumstantial evidence" is a correct and usable term in written English.
It is often used in legal contexts to refer to evidence that implies something without providing proof of it. For example, "The circumstantial evidence suggested the suspect was guilty, but with no witnesses the jury was unable to conclusively prove it."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

See also circumstantial evidence.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Circumstantial evidence supports this thesis.

The Economist

It's not circumstantial evidence".

The New York Times - Science

There's certainly circumstantial evidence.

The New Yorker

Circumstantial evidence supports this story.

The Economist

Circumstantial evidence supports this argument.

The Economist

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

The New Yorker

And circumstantial evidence is admissible.

The New York Times

"We only have circumstantial evidence.

The Guardian

Circumstantial evidence can be used against anybody.

The New York Times - Sports

It also jars with other circumstantial evidence.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When presenting "circumstantial evidence", clearly articulate the chain of reasoning that connects the evidence to the conclusion you are trying to establish. Avoid overstating the strength of the evidence.

Common error

Avoid presenting "circumstantial evidence" as definitive proof. Acknowledge its limitations and the possibility of alternative explanations. Be clear about the degree of certainty the evidence supports.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "circumstantial evidence" functions primarily as a noun phrase, often serving as the subject or object of a sentence. It describes a type of evidence that relies on inference rather than direct proof. Ludwig AI indicates that this usage is grammatically correct and widely accepted.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

69%

Academia

13%

Science

8%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

2%

Wiki

1%

Formal & Business

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "circumstantial evidence" refers to evidence that implies a fact without directly proving it, often used in legal and investigative contexts. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase is grammatically sound and widely accepted. It's a common phrase, appearing most frequently in News & Media and academic writing. When using "circumstantial evidence", it's important to clearly articulate the connection between the evidence and the conclusion, while avoiding overstatement. Alternatives include "indirect proof" and "inferential evidence", each with slightly different nuances.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

indirect proof

Focuses on the indirect nature of the evidence in establishing a fact.

inferential evidence

Highlights the need for inference to connect the evidence to the conclusion.

secondary evidence

Emphasizes that the evidence is not primary or direct.

collateral evidence

Suggests the evidence supports a main point but is not central to it.

suggestive evidence

Highlights that the evidence hints at something without proving it definitively.

corroborative details

Focuses on how details support a broader narrative or argument.

presumptive evidence

Indicates evidence that is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise.

attendant circumstances

Highlights the relevance of surrounding conditions in implying a conclusion.

implied evidence

Focuses on the evidence that is suggested rather than explicitly stated.

contextual clues

Emphasizes the reliance on context to interpret the evidence.

FAQs

How is "circumstantial evidence" used in legal settings?

"Circumstantial evidence" is used to build a case by inference, linking a series of facts to suggest a conclusion. It differs from direct evidence, which proves a fact directly. The weight given to "circumstantial evidence" varies depending on its strength and the context.

What's the difference between "circumstantial evidence" and direct evidence?

Direct evidence proves a fact directly (e.g., eyewitness testimony). "Circumstantial evidence" /s/indirect+proof implies a fact through a series of related circumstances. Direct evidence is often seen as more compelling, but both types of evidence can be valuable.

What are some alternatives to the phrase "circumstantial evidence"?

Depending on the context, you can use alternatives like "indirect proof", "inferential evidence", or "suggestive evidence". Each of these highlights a slightly different aspect of evidence that isn't directly conclusive.

Can a case be built solely on "circumstantial evidence"?

Yes, a case can be built solely on "circumstantial evidence", but it requires a strong and consistent chain of inferences. The strength of the case depends on the quality and quantity of the "corroborative details" and the absence of reasonable alternative explanations.