What needs advisor approval?

Question

Do these two sentences mean the same thing.

exceptions for this requirement may be made only for medical reasons or any other reasons that are first approved by the Advisor and a 3/4 chapter vote.

exceptions for this requirement may be made only for medical reasons or any other reasons, that are first approved by the Advisor and a 3/4 chapter vote.

Answer 1

Allen, you’re asking a great question, because this is one of those cases where grammatical structure has real-world consequences. I agree with the previous tutor that both sentences are grammatical, but they are not equivalent in meaning. The difference comes down to where the modifying phrase attaches — a subtle issue in English syntax called “scope.”

Let’s examine the two versions:

1. “…for medical reasons or any other reasons that are first approved by the Advisor and a 3/4 chapter vote.”

In this wording, the restriction “first approved…” applies only to “any other reasons,” not to “medical reasons.” Structurally, “that are first approved…” modifies the closest noun phrase (“any other reasons”), meaning:

1. Medical reasons stand alone as an independent exemption
2. Non-medical reasons require advisor and chapter approval

This interpretation aligns with how English normally resolves modifier attachment—modifiers apply to the nearest noun unless a comma or parallel structure forces them to apply to both.

1. “…for medical reasons or any other reasons, that are first approved by the Advisor and a 3/4 chapter vote.”

Adding the comma broadens the scope — the modifying phrase now applies to both medical reasons and any other reasons because the comma separates the noun phrases from the modifier. This creates a meaning equivalent to:

1. All exemptions — medical or otherwise — must first be approved

So Allen is correct: the first sentence permits a medical exemption without governance approval, while the second sentence requires approval even for a medical exemption.

Now, why does this matter for your situation?

Because the original lease wording controls interpretation, your son’s advisor may very well be misreading the clause if sentence (1) was the version printed in the contract. If so, the university/fraternity is treating sentence (1) as if it were sentence (2). That is a classic example of mis-scoping — interpreting a restrictive modifier more broadly than its grammar actually allows.

To resolve this, you can:

1. Quote the exact original sentence
2. Point out the grammatical scope rule — the modifier attaches to the nearest noun phrase
3. Clarify that under standard legal drafting conventions, if approval were required for all exemptions, the wording would need either a comma or duplication:

“…for medical reasons, or for any other reasons, both of which must first be approved…”

Legal documents often hinge on these grammatical distinctions, which is why contract drafters typically rewrite such clauses to avoid ambiguity.

So in short:

1. The first version grants medical exemptions without approval.
2. The second version does not.

If your son’s lease matches the first version, then the advisor’s interpretation may indeed be inconsistent with the text, and it may be worth politely raising the syntactic reading with the housing or chapter administrator.

Hope this helps clarify both the grammar and the practical stakes. If you want, you can post the exact lease sentence here, and I can diagram it for you to show where the modifier applies — it’s often persuasive in these situations.

Answer 2

Hi Allen! It appears that the first statement is grammatically correct and is stating that you have two options to get excused from the requirement.

Option 1. You have a medical reason.

Option 2: You get excused by your advisor and then get approval from the required 3/4 chapter vote.

I hope this helps! Good luck on all your endeavors.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.