-
I have a practical grammar issue on which I would value some views. I have a piece of legislation to interpret. I need to determine the logical meaning of a circumstance where the minister is satisfied that the document is no longer able to be used to facilitate international travel but is not satisfied that it is no longer able to be used as evidence of identity and citizenship. Is the document valid?
an Australian passport ceases to be valid if:
(a) it is damaged; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that it is no longer usable as evidence of the identity and citizenship of its holder or to facilitate international travel.
-
Clearly the 'and' there would mean to a logician that the passport must fill both requirements to cease to be valid. People in logistic are likely to disagree, though. And I wonder how the minister finds the time to check all those passports. My guess is that any significant damage to the passport alone will suffice to make it invalid, and that the Minister has outsourced the control of the usability of the passport as evidence of identity and citizenship of its holder.
-
The sad part about that permissive methodology is that it was recommended by supposed experts in education.
Sadder yet is their preferring to ignore statistical feedback showing that their method isn't working too well.
