circumstantial

简明释义

英[ˌsɜːkəmˈstænʃ(ə)l]美[ˌsɜːrkəmˈstænʃl]

adj. 依照情况的；详细的，详尽的；偶然的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.There is only circumstantial evidence against her, so she is unlikely to be convicted.

只有间接证据对她不利，所以她不大会被定罪。

2.Circumstantial lies may be justified.

谎言也是一种间接的方法。

3.The evidence may even be circumstantial.

证据甚至可能是间接的。

4.There is, however, a problem with this theory: it relies on circumstantial evidence.

这种说法有一个漏洞：它是建立在旁证的基础之上的。

5.Yeah. Everything else was circumstantial.

嗯其他都是间接证据。

6.But the top court said that the circumstantial evidence proves beyond doubt that Hayashi is guilty.

但是最高法庭说，一系列旁证毫无疑问的证明Hayashi是凶手。

7.The evidence for equating Seneca with the author of the tragedies seems circumstantial.

把塞内加等同于悲剧作者的证据似乎是间接的。

8.Fast work by the police had started producing circumstantial evidence.

警方已快速开展了建立旁证的工作。

9.Indeed, earlier probes had found circumstantial evidence of at least some ice there before.

事实上，早期的探索就发现在那有冰的旁证。

10.His circumstantial remarks about the incident raised more questions than answers.

他对事件的间接评论引发了更多的问题而不是答案。

11.In court, the jury was instructed to consider only circumstantial evidence presented during the trial.

法庭上，陪审团被指示只考虑审判期间提出的间接证据。

12.The detective gathered all the circumstantial evidence to build a case against the suspect.

侦探收集了所有的间接证据来建立对嫌疑犯的案件。

13.Her circumstantial explanation for being late seemed plausible at first.

她关于迟到的偶然情况解释乍一看似乎很合理。

14.The report included circumstantial details that painted a vivid picture of the event.

报告中包含了详细的背景信息，生动地描绘了事件的情景。

作文

In our daily lives, we often find ourselves in situations where the truth is obscured by various factors. One such factor is the nature of evidence presented, which can be either direct or circumstantial. The term circumstantial refers to evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. This type of evidence is not direct proof but rather suggests a possibility based on surrounding circumstances. Understanding the implications of circumstantial evidence is crucial, especially in legal contexts, where it can significantly influence the outcome of a case.For instance, consider a criminal trial where a suspect is accused of theft. If the prosecution presents a witness who saw the suspect near the scene of the crime, this could be considered direct evidence. However, if the prosecution instead relies on the fact that the suspect was seen leaving the area shortly after the crime occurred, along with the discovery of stolen goods in their possession, this would be categorized as circumstantial evidence. While such evidence can be compelling, it also requires careful examination to avoid jumping to conclusions.The strength of circumstantial evidence lies in its ability to paint a broader picture. It allows jurors and judges to piece together a narrative that may lead them to a logical conclusion. However, this type of evidence is often criticized for being less reliable than direct evidence. Critics argue that circumstantial evidence can lead to wrongful convictions, as it relies heavily on interpretation and the context in which the evidence is presented.Moreover, circumstantial evidence can be influenced by biases and assumptions. For example, if a jury is presented with a series of circumstantial facts that suggest guilt, they may unconsciously allow their prejudices to cloud their judgment. This highlights the importance of critical thinking and the need for a thorough examination of all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, before reaching a verdict.In everyday situations, we often rely on circumstantial evidence to make decisions. For example, if we see someone walking quickly away from a store with a bag, we might conclude that they have stolen something. However, without further information, such as the person’s previous behavior or the presence of security footage, this conclusion remains speculative. This illustrates how easily circumstantial evidence can lead us astray if we do not consider all available information.In conclusion, while circumstantial evidence plays a vital role in both legal settings and everyday life, it is essential to approach it with caution. Recognizing its limitations and the potential for misinterpretation can help us make more informed decisions. Whether in a courtroom or in our personal lives, understanding the nature of circumstantial evidence allows us to navigate complex situations with greater clarity. Ultimately, a balanced view that considers both direct and circumstantial evidence will lead to more just outcomes and better decision-making overall.

在我们的日常生活中，我们经常发现自己处于真相被各种因素模糊的情况中。其中一个因素是所呈现证据的性质，证据可以是直接的或间接的。术语间接的指的是依赖推断将其与事实结论联系起来的证据。这种类型的证据不是直接证据，而是基于周围情况暗示一种可能性。理解间接的证据的含义至关重要，尤其是在法律背景下，它可以显著影响案件的结果。例如，考虑一个刑事审判，其中一名嫌疑人被控盗窃。如果检方提供了一名目击者，他看到嫌疑人在犯罪现场附近，这可以被视为直接证据。然而，如果检方依赖于嫌疑人在犯罪发生后不久被看到离开该地区，以及在他们的拥有物中发现被盗物品，这将被归类为间接的证据。虽然这种证据可能令人信服，但它也需要仔细审查，以避免草率得出结论。间接的证据的力量在于它能够描绘出更广泛的图景。它允许陪审员和法官拼凑出一个叙述，可能导致他们得出逻辑结论。然而，这种类型的证据常常因被认为不如直接证据可靠而受到批评。批评者认为，间接的证据可能导致错误定罪，因为它在很大程度上依赖于解释和呈现证据的上下文。此外，间接的证据可能会受到偏见和假设的影响。例如，如果陪审团面临一系列暗示有罪的间接的事实，他们可能无意中让自己的偏见影响判断。这突显了批判性思维的重要性，以及在得出裁决之前对所有证据进行彻底审查的必要性，无论是直接的还是间接的。在日常情况下，我们经常依赖间接的证据来做出决策。例如，如果我们看到某人快速走出商店，手里拿着一个包，我们可能会得出他们偷了东西的结论。然而，在没有进一步信息的情况下，比如这个人的先前行为或监控录像的存在，这一结论仍然是推测性的。这说明了如果我们不考虑所有可用信息，间接的证据多么容易导致我们误入歧途。总之，尽管间接的证据在法律环境和日常生活中发挥着重要作用，但必须谨慎对待。认识到它的局限性和误解的潜力可以帮助我们做出更明智的决策。无论是在法庭上还是在个人生活中，理解间接的证据的性质使我们能够以更清晰的方式应对复杂情况。最终，考虑直接和间接的证据的平衡观点将导致更公正的结果和更好的决策。