The Scholarship Letter With Contradictory Dates
You read a one-page Tamil notice about a community scholarship. It states the application deadline as 'the 30th of this month' in the opening paragraph. In the third paragraph it says forms must reach the office 'within two weeks of the notice date'. The notice is dated the 22nd. A footnote says late applications 'may be considered if accompanied by a medical certificate'. The eligibility section says applicants must have scored 'above 75%' in the previous year, but a later line says students scoring '75% and above' are eligible. The contact person is named, with a phone number that has only nine digits. The notice is signed by a secretary whose title is given but whose name is smudged.
1. Determine the real deadline and explain how you reconciled the conflicting statements.
Read the worked answer
Two candidate deadlines:
- 'The 30th of this month' → the 30th.
- 'Within two weeks of the notice date' → 22nd + 14 days = the 5th of next month.
Reconciliation: The two statements conflict. The '30th' is a specific calendar date; the 'two weeks' is a relative rule. Standard document-reading logic gives priority to the specific, unambiguous date over a relative computation, because the relative rule may have been carried over from a template. However, a careful reader also notes that the two-week rule produces a later date (the 5th), so the safe course is to submit by the earlier of the two - the 30th - since meeting the earlier date satisfies both readings.
This is the key judgement: when deadlines conflict, the prudent applicant targets the earlier one. Answering only 'the 30th' without acknowledging the second statement misses the reconciliation the question asks for.
2. Assess the eligibility threshold and explain why the two phrasings matter.
Read the worked answer
The two phrasings are 'above 75%' and '75% and above'. These differ only for a student scoring exactly 75%.
- 'Above 75%' excludes 75 itself.
- '75% and above' includes it.
A student with exactly 75% is therefore eligible under the second statement and ineligible under the first. Since the second statement is more specific and appears later - typically where clarifying detail is placed - the reasonable reading is that 75% is eligible, and the earlier 'above 75%' is loose drafting. But the applicant should not assume: the correct action is to apply (since the later clause favours them) while flagging the discrepancy to the contact person.
The exam tests whether you notice that a boundary case exists at all. Many responses treat the two phrases as identical; the marks are for identifying the exact-score scenario and reasoning about which clause governs.
3. What problems in the notice prevent you from relying on it alone, and what would you do next?
Read the worked answer
Defects identified:
- Conflicting deadlines (30th vs two weeks from the 22nd) - resolved by targeting the earlier date, but the ambiguity remains.
- Boundary ambiguity in the score requirement (75% exactly).
- Incomplete phone number - nine digits instead of ten, so it cannot be dialled as printed.
- Illegible signatory - the name is smudged, though the title is legible, so the office can still be identified.
- Conditional late-submission clause - 'may be considered' with a medical certificate is discretionary, not a guarantee, so it cannot be relied on as an extension.
Next steps: Submit before the 30th regardless; contact the office in person or via the named title rather than the faulty number; and confirm the 75% boundary in writing so the decision is documented. The judgement is recognising that a defective document still sets a safe course - meet the strictest reading and verify the rest.