The Ambiguous Repair Notice
The Riverside Tenant Association has drafted a notice: 'Residents who have not yet submitted their repair request forms should do so before Friday, or their requests may not be processed until the following month.' The chair reads it as a firm deadline for submitting forms; the secretary says it merely warns of delay. A translator notes that 'may not be processed' could be read as a prohibition rather than a postponement. Twenty-three residents speak English as a second language, and eleven have already asked for clarification. The association must post the notice tomorrow and cannot convene a full meeting. The building manager has confirmed that late forms will be accepted but placed at the end of the queue.
1. Identify the two most consequential ambiguities in the notice and explain, for each, how a reasonable resident could be led to a different action.
Read the worked answer
The first ambiguity is modal: 'should' sets an expectation, not a requirement, while 'may not be processed' can mean either 'might be delayed' or 'will not be accepted'. A resident who reads 'may' as permission to refuse may conclude that late forms are pointless; a resident who reads it as a warning may submit late and expect processing. The second is temporal scope: 'before Friday' is not the same as 'by Friday', and 'until the following month' does not say whether a late form submitted on Friday afternoon is processed in the next cycle or simply sits unprocessed. The manager's actual policy - late forms accepted, placed at the end of the queue - is consistent with delay but not with refusal. Because the notice is the only information many residents will see, the drafter's intended meaning is not controlling; the reader's reasonable interpretation is. The eleven clarification requests are evidence that the ambiguity is material, not hypothetical.
2. Rewrite the notice in no more than 30 words so that it conveys the building manager's actual policy without promising more than is known.
Read the worked answer
A version under 30 words: 'Submit repair request forms by Friday. Late forms are accepted but placed at the end of the queue, so processing may take until next month.' This keeps the deadline, states the consequence accurately ('accepted' rather than 'may not be processed'), and avoids promising a processing date. It changes 'should' to an imperative only because the manager confirmed a real queue policy; if late forms were truly optional, the imperative would overstate the obligation. It also replaces 'before Friday' with 'by Friday', removing the Thursday-night ambiguity. The revision does not say late forms will be processed next month, only that processing may take that long, which matches what the manager actually knows.
3. A resident argues that if the notice says 'may', it says nothing at all. Assess this claim.
Read the worked answer
'May' is not empty: it communicates a risk of delay and shifts uncertainty to the reader. But the resident has a point about rule-like language: a notice that uses 'may' does not tell a resident what will happen, so it cannot support a firm plan. In tenant-facing communication, ambiguity about consequences is not neutral - it disadvantages residents who cannot afford to gamble on processing delays. The word 'may' is acceptable only when the underlying policy is itself uncertain. Here the manager knows the policy, so 'may' understates what is known and should be replaced by a statement of the queue rule. If the policy were genuinely discretionary, 'may' would be honest but would still require an explanation of who decides and when.