A more thorough explanation:

A conflicting presumption is a legal inference or assumption that leads to opposite results. It is one of two or more presumptions that contradict each other. For example, in a case where A proves himself to be the son of N, wife of M, but M and N were already separated, and later M married P, and had a son B, the later marriage of M might presume a prior divorce from N before separation to make it valid, and yet the birth of A from a married mother might be presumed legitimate, and thus the question whether A or B was the legitimate son would be attended by opposing presumptions.

Conflicting presumptions are also known as inconsistent presumptions. They are different from conclusive presumptions, which cannot be overcome by any additional evidence or argument.

Example: In a criminal case, the prosecution presents evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The defense presents evidence that the defendant was at a different location at the same time. The conflicting presumptions of guilt and innocence arise, and the jury must weigh the evidence to determine which presumption is more convincing.

This example illustrates how conflicting presumptions can arise in a criminal case, where the prosecution and defense present different evidence that leads to opposite conclusions. The jury must decide which presumption to accept based on the evidence presented.