Two Sources, One Deadline: Inferring the Real Dispute
A school’s attendance memo states: “Students with more than five unexcused absences in a semester lose parking privileges.” A student emails the principal: “I missed six days because my mother’s surgery required me to drive her to appointments. I did not know I needed to submit notes within 48 hours.” The principal replies: “The policy allows excused absences; documentation was due Friday.” The student has the notes, dated before Friday, but they were in a backpack and never submitted. The appeal window closes in three days.
1. What inference about why the student lost parking is best supported by the two sources? Avoid assuming facts not stated.
Read the worked answer
The best-supported inference is procedural, not moral: the student’s absences may have been excusable in principle, but the documentation was not submitted by the deadline, so the school treated them as unexcused under its process. The memo defines the consequence by “unexcused” absences; the principal’s reply says the policy allows excused absences but notes the Friday deadline. The student’s email explains the absences and admits not knowing the 48-hour rule. Nothing says the school rejected the surgery explanation as false. The notes are dated before Friday, which supports a timely-documentation argument, but the student did not deliver them. So the loss of parking is best explained by a missed submission deadline, not by the school denying that the mother’s surgery occurred.
2. What additional evidence would most strengthen the student’s appeal, and what would it not prove?
Read the worked answer
The strongest additional evidence is proof of submission or proof that the 48-hour rule was not clearly communicated. For example, a dated copy of the notes with a receipt from the front office, or a screenshot showing the portal accepted the upload after Friday, would directly address the deadline issue. Evidence that the student told a teacher or counselor about the surgery before Friday could support a good-faith notification argument. What would not prove the case: the notes themselves, even if dated before Friday, because the principal’s objection is about submission, not authenticity. A doctor’s letter confirming the surgery also would not prove timely delivery. The appeal should target the procedural gap.