direct evidence

USAGE SUMMARY

"direct evidence" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it to describe evidence that has been directly observed or experienced, as opposed to circumstantial evidence. For example, "The direct evidence shows that the defendant was at the scene of the crime."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

But there is no direct evidence.

The Economist

However, direct evidence for that is lacking.

The Economist

The new study provides more direct evidence.

The New York Times

But I have no direct evidence".

The New York Times

But there is no direct evidence of his guilt.

The New York Times

No direct evidence supporting this claim was cited.

The Guardian

"You almost never have direct evidence of intent.

The Guardian

But there is no direct evidence for these claims.

The New Yorker

"There is no direct evidence that STI-571 prolongs life.

The New York Times - Science

These charities have direct evidence of their effectiveness.

The Guardian

But there has never been direct evidence of it.

The New York Times - Science

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When presenting "direct evidence", ensure it is clearly linked to the claim it supports. Avoid ambiguity by explicitly stating the connection.

Common error

Avoid presenting circumstantial evidence as "direct evidence". Be accurate in categorizing the type of evidence you are using to support your claims.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "direct evidence" functions primarily as a noun phrase. It identifies a specific type of evidence that directly supports a claim, as seen in Ludwig's examples, such as, "There is no direct evidence that EUS improves patient outcome."

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

34%

Science

65%

Wiki

1%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "direct evidence" is a frequently used noun phrase that refers to proof that supports a claim without the need for inference. Ludwig AI confirms its grammatical correctness and widespread use across diverse sources, particularly in news and scientific contexts. When using this phrase, be mindful to accurately categorize the type of evidence you're presenting and clearly link it to the supported claim. Alternatives such as "firsthand proof" or "hard facts" can be used depending on the context.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

firsthand proof

Changes the wording to emphasize personal observation.

immediate confirmation

Focuses on the promptness of the evidence.

explicit proof

Highlights the clarity and unambiguity of the evidence.

definitive indication

Implies the evidence is conclusive.

hard facts

Uses a more informal term for concrete evidence.

solid grounds

Shifts the focus to the basis provided by the evidence.

irrefutable data

Highlights the undeniable nature of the information.

clear indicators

Uses a broader term for signs or signals.

patent demonstration

Suggests the evidence is easily visible and apparent.

observable verification

Focuses on the ability to verify through observation.

FAQs

How to use "direct evidence" in a sentence?

You can use "direct evidence" to describe proof that supports a claim without needing additional inference. For instance, "The surveillance video provided "direct evidence" of the suspect's presence at the scene".

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

"Direct evidence" proves a fact directly, while circumstantial evidence requires inference. For example, a witness seeing someone commit a crime is "direct evidence", while finding the suspect's fingerprints at the scene is circumstantial.

What can I say instead of "direct evidence"?

You can use alternatives like "firsthand proof", "explicit proof", or "hard facts" depending on the context.

Is "direct evidence" the same as conclusive evidence?

While "direct evidence" can be conclusive, it isn't always. Conclusive evidence is irrefutable and leaves no room for doubt, whereas "direct evidence" simply means the evidence is straightforward and doesn't require inference but could still be challenged.