The Hostel Circular and the Disciplinary Committee
An PU college hostel in Belagavi, with 180 residents and 40 day scholars, issues a circular before the mid-term examinations. The disciplinary committee must interpret four clauses after students object: C1: 'Only hostellers may use the reading room after 10 p.m.' C2: 'Day scholars who have not obtained a gate pass will not be allowed to attend the evening study circle unless the warden grants special permission.' C3: 'No serious student wastes time in the canteen during study hours.' C4: 'The warden told the prefects on Monday that the inspectors would visit the kitchen.' A day scholar without a gate pass stayed away from the study circle and later argued that he had no choice. A hosteller found in the reading room at 10.40 p.m. argued that C1 gives every hosteller a right to be there. Another student says C3 is 'not a rule at all, just a judgement'. The warden wants each disputed sentence rewritten so that a rule can be applied without argument.
1. Analyse C1. What does it entail, what does it not entail, and how should it be rewritten?
Read the worked answer
'Only' marks a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Let U = uses the reading room after 10 p.m., H = is a hosteller. C1 says U → H: anyone in the room after 10 is a hosteller. Its contrapositive, ¬H → ¬U, is the operative prohibition for day scholars.
What C1 does not say:
- It does not say H → U. The hosteller's 'right to be there' is the fallacy of the converse (illicit conversion); at most the clause leaves hostellers unobstructed, subject to every other rule.
- It says nothing about use before 10 p.m., nothing about signing a register, and nothing about a hosteller's guests.
- The boundary is vague: 10.40 p.m. is clearly 'after 10', but is 10.00 p.m. itself covered?
Repair by rewriting explicitly: 'Use of the reading room is restricted to hostellers after 22:00 hours. A hosteller may use the room after 22:00 only if he or she has signed the late-entry register. Day scholars may not use the room after 22:00 in any circumstances.' This separates the necessary condition from any permission, states the exemption route, and fixes the time boundary - turning an ambiguous restriction into an operational rule that a prefect can apply without interpretation.
2. Formalise C2 and test the day scholar's defence that, having no gate pass, he was not allowed to attend.
Read the worked answer
Let G = has obtained a gate pass, W = the warden grants special permission, A = is allowed to attend the study circle.
C2, 'day scholars who have not obtained a gate pass will not be allowed to attend ... unless the warden grants special permission', becomes (¬G ∧ ¬W) → ¬A, equivalently A → (G ∨ W). ('Unless' = 'if not'; the prohibition is lifted if either the pass or the permission exists.)
The student's argument: ¬G, therefore ¬A.
- ¬G
- ∴ ¬A
This is invalid: it silently drops the conjunct ¬W. Counterexample: ¬G true, W true, A true - the antecedent (¬G ∧ ¬W) is false, so C2 is satisfied, and he is allowed to attend. To make the inference valid he would need both ¬G and ¬W, that is, positive evidence that the warden refused permission. Absent that, the defence fails.
Note also that C2 confers no permission by itself: A → (G ∨ W) states what must hold if he attends, not that he may attend once he holds a pass.
3. Identify and name the language defects in C3 and C4, and show how to repair each.
Read the worked answer
C3 - 'No serious student wastes time in the canteen during study hours.'
- Persuasive definition and emotive language. 'Serious student' is so framed that canteen use automatically disqualifies a student from the description. The sentence cannot be tested: anyone found in the canteen is, by definition, not serious, so the rule is question-begging (circular) rather than regulative.
- It is also vague: 'wastes time' and 'study hours' have no fixed boundaries.
- Repair: replace the evaluative term with an observable prohibition and fix the time band: 'Students may not be in the canteen between 18:00 and 21:00 on weekdays. Students holding a medical exemption signed by the warden may use the canteen for meals.'
C4 - 'The warden told the prefects on Monday that the inspectors would visit the kitchen.'
- Amphiboly (syntactic ambiguity). 'On Monday' may modify told (the telling happened on Monday) or would visit (the visit was to happen on Monday); 'the inspectors' is also vague about which body is meant.
- Repair by fixing word order and defining the term: 'On Monday 4 August the warden told the prefects that two inspectors from the Department of Pre-University Education would visit the kitchen on Thursday 7 August.'
The general lesson: a rule that no state of affairs can violate is not yet a rule, and a sentence whose truth changes with word order is not yet a proposition fit for disciplinary use.