What kind of evidence describes situations that require inference?

Circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence that primarily involves situations where the details and context surrounding an event lead to a logical inference or conclusion, rather than providing direct proof of a fact. It consists of observations that suggest something is true or gives rise to a reasonable assumption about a situation, requiring the decision-maker to deduce or infer the existence of a certain fact.

For example, if a person is observed leaving the vicinity of a crime scene with a wet umbrella shortly after rain, one might infer that they were present during the rain and could have witnessed the crime. The evidence isn't direct proof but rather builds a case through context and relation.

Direct evidence, on the other hand, provides firsthand proof of a fact, such as an eyewitness testimony that directly observed an event occur. Testimonial evidence refers to statements made by witnesses about their perceptions or experiences, but it does not necessarily require inference. Physical evidence consists of tangible items that can be examined and may serve as convincing proof without requiring any conjecture.

Therefore, circumstantial evidence uniquely fits the description of requiring inference, as it relies on context and connection rather than straightforward proof.