What logical fallacy is being used when arguing from insufficient evidence?

The logical fallacy being utilized when arguing from insufficient evidence is the Appeal to Ignorance. This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based solely on a lack of evidence to the contrary, essentially stating that if something cannot be proven false, it must be true, or vice versa. This misapplication of reasoning fails to consider that a lack of evidence does not necessarily substantiate a claim.

In this context, the Appeal to Ignorance suggests that because there is no definitive proof against a claim, it is acceptable to accept it as true. This misleads the audience into accepting a proposition without sufficient support. The other options, while some represent various fallacies, do not specifically pertain to making conclusions based on inadequate evidence, which makes the Appeal to Ignorance the most appropriate choice in this instance.