Library Notice and the Lost Book
The library at a school issues the following notice: 'Students who have not returned all library books by Friday will not be allowed to sit the mid-term examination unless they pay a fine of Rs. 100 per book. The library will remain open until 4 p.m. on Friday. Students with outstanding books must report to the librarian before the deadline. Any student who has lost a book must either replace it with a book of the same title or pay the current market price.' Nadia has two overdue books. One is at home and she returns it on Friday at 3:30 p.m. The other she lost. She reports the lost book at the same time and says she cannot afford the market price, which is Rs. 1,200. She offers to pay Rs. 100 instead. The librarian says Nadia cannot sit the examination because she has not returned all books and has not paid the market price. Nadia argues that the notice allows any student to pay Rs. 100 per book, so she should be allowed to sit after paying Rs. 200.
1. Identify the main ambiguity in the notice and explain how it affects Nadia's case.
Read the worked answer
The notice contains two overlapping rules. The first sentence says a student who has not returned all books may sit the examination if they pay a fine of Rs. 100 per book. The fourth sentence says a student who has lost a book must replace it or pay the current market price. It is unclear whether the Rs. 100 fine is an alternative to the lost-book rule, or only an additional late-return penalty. It is also unclear whether reporting a lost book counts as 'returning' it. For Nadia, this matters because she has returned one book and reported the other as lost. If the Rs. 100 fine applies to any unreturned book, she can pay Rs. 200 and sit. If the lost-book rule is a separate, mandatory condition, she must pay Rs. 1,200 or replace the book. The notice does not say which reading is correct.
2. Using only the notice, is the librarian's decision justified? Give the strongest argument for each side.
Read the worked answer
For the librarian: The fourth sentence is specific about lost books. It says the student 'must either replace it ... or pay the current market price.' Nadia has done neither, so she has not satisfied the condition for a lost book. The first sentence's Rs. 100 fine deals with books that are merely late; the more specific lost-book rule should control. For Nadia: The first sentence is broad: any student who has not returned all books may sit if they pay Rs. 100 per book. It does not exclude lost books. The notice never says that the Rs. 100 fine is unavailable when a book is lost, so Nadia's reading is possible. Conclusion: The librarian's decision is defensible but not clearly required by the text. The notice is ambiguous and should be rewritten; a fair decision would ask for clarification rather than simply bar Nadia.
3. Rewrite the notice's first two sentences so that the rule for lost books is unambiguous. Your rewrite must preserve the fine for late returns and the market-price rule for lost books.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite: 'Students must return all library books by 4 p.m. on Friday. A student who has not returned a book by that deadline must pay a late fine of Rs. 100 for each such book before being allowed to sit the mid-term examination. This late fine does not apply to a lost book. A student who has lost a book must either replace it with a copy of the same title or pay the current market price of the book; until the replacement or payment is made, the student will not be allowed to sit the examination.' This separates late-return fines from lost-book replacement, so there is no overlap.