In an argument from sign, what is inferred from signs?

In an argument from sign, the correct inference is that it identifies the existence of something unknown from known signs. This type of reasoning relies on observable indicators or evidence that suggest that something not directly observed exists or is true. For instance, if you see dark clouds in the sky, you might infer that rain is likely on the way. The signs (dark clouds) lead to an inference about an event that has not yet occurred (the rain).

The other options do not accurately reflect the principles of an argument from sign. The notion of immediate truth is not applicable here, as signs can suggest likelihoods and probabilities rather than absolute truths. The irrelevant nature of signs also does not align with the concept, as signs are the crux of the argument. Similarly, while context can sometimes enhance understanding, it is not the basis of what one infers from signs in this reasoning framework. Therefore, the ability to infer unknown existence from known indicators is precisely what characterizes argumentation through signs.