Logical Treatment of Thier Toomfooleries

It would not be out of place if we treat this riddle philosophically, because it will evoke a thought provoking phenomena regarding the fallacies which we are worshipping blindly
We have been violating the integrated rules of Philosophy (which works on evidence and on it Law is based ) for “changing the rules” thus giving them color of Charter then rules
When we are confronted with statement that this case is not based on Philosophy (Which is actually a Law), the answer is simple anything devoid of Philosophy is Absurdity
There must be Philosophy of not accommodating us rather an absurdity or indeed there is….

We are not a student of Philosophy but you may if you like after reading this article, may praise us for our study of Philosophy Text over which our all Human Actions and intentions are based . Anything out of its scope is considered barbaric inhumane, ridiculous and any worst word you can name.

This logical treatment is worked out by taking the work of “LOVE IS A FALLACY” by Max Shulman as template and applying some changes in text to make it comprehendible for our readers and of course bigots!
We have derived fallacies which our Policymakers are blindly worshipping on the basis of Analogy of Shulman’s work.

Poisoning The Well
Not listening to us we, expelled students is just like poisoning the Well. When no one will listen how will the solution arrive like Two men are having a debate. The first one gets up and says, ‘My opponent is a notorious liar. You can’t believe a word that he is going to say ‘
It’s not a bit fair What chance has the second man got if the first man calls him a liar before he even begins talking?
The Policy Maker had poisoned the well before they can listen to us. They had took for granted that we can never be right just as the first Man has poisoned the well before anybody could drink from it

Dicto-Simpliciter
We see that Organization that formulated the policy of expelling students did on the basis of Dicto Simpliciter i.e. based upon unqualified and incomplete Generalizations, “delivering” that any Students who fails in first Prof MBBS Thrice is not worthy of doing it in spite of his resplendent Academic History
For Example Doctors say Exercise is Good Everybody must do Exercise
The argument is a fallacy Exercise is good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. we must qualify the generalization.
We must say students who fail in three chances are non-serious but some are not due to some problems and they must be accommodated and worst thing is the evidence of precedent and the recent blunder
We must not bully upon the conclusions just prove what “looks” correct

No Chance: Hypothesis Contrary to The Fact
Its rather Hypothesis Contrary to Fact." when we talk of accommodating students. By giving them an extra chance University says they will again fail
But if we were allowed an additional chance ,we might pass if we are allowed because the things needed to pass are intelligence hard work (As we promise) we have,
Here is an example: If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium That statement is a fallacy because may be Madame Curie would have discovered radium at some later date. Maybe somebody else would have discovered it. Maybe any number of things would have happened.
We can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it, like we have failed and will never pass

Hasty Generalization
Although I am victim of this mantra but any outsider too will say that limiting three chances for passing First Professional MBBS exam is a “Hasty Generalization “
For example a Student Expelled few years back, We (Jury) say he failed three times therefore everyone will fail who is allowed even fourth Chance its contrary to Philosophy
An example to support the fact is that I can’t speak Persian Mr.X too can’t speak Persian. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Punjab for example can not speak Persian
The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion
There might be more then two if we would have searched thoroughly the Punjab University.

Post Hoc
This phenomena will also help in proving my point “Post Hoc”
If a Patient dies on bed, of Academically dull Doctor (passed at 5th Chance). Its not I who was involved in his death.
We go on picnic and decide. Let's not take Mr.X on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.
But Mr.X did not caused the rain.
So I must be given my share of permission in entering 4th Chance while the former got even 5th?
This is a step for asking Five Chances. Philosophically Proved and MOTTO TOO
Owing to his incapability why others be blamed

False Analogy
We are told we are independent University we do not care what others do we are the ultimate sovereignty
Based on which Argument?
Let us consider an example students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during an operation, lawyers have briefs to guide them during a trial, carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a house. Why, then, shouldn’t students be allowed to look at their textbooks during an examination?
This is clearly False Analogy
The trap is that argument is all wrong. Doctors, lawyers, and carpenters aren’t taking a test to see how much they have learned, but students are.
The New University must abide by what other health universities are doing. She is to educate as others does and confer degree and nothing else
Their graduates are same as others’ as they will practice in that infrastructure where other will. They are not Oracle or Invincible in knowledge
Its inappropriate for her to invent policies which always converse others’, a monopolistic idea

Ad Misericordiam
We are asking the right on the base of history and philosophy.
We have not included the reason of failure
If we are said “As you collapsed (apply all previous fallacies) you may turn to CSS, PhD, Veterinary, Pharmacy etc but not medicine “now onwards in ‘Pakistan””
But we are asking question (Right) not Suggestion
For Example A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies that he has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming.
Yes, it’s awful,we agree, but it’s no argument
He did not answer the question which he asked
We are asking extra chances to attempt as our predecessors got not a Suggestion
All Processes work on logic and reasoning we had provided the aftermath of these Decisions.


There are two effects of these reasoning or evidences that “An Opposition” will be used and those in this opposition will be those who themselves do NOT know what they are curbing or simply the Authorities will make an ass of “Respectful Force”

We forget they are NOT LAW. Law is what they had been shattering scores of times for “our thoughtful predecessors”.

There this sort of attitude INCITE People to commit Social Crimes ,Suicides, abuse of Powers which will at last vest in them FOR THEY are talented enough to secure them and lastly “BLUNDERS”
The recent rule promulgated by PMDC rules out any pretext for NOT accommodating intervening batches i.e. 2002,03,04
Law or philosophy has no choice then to accommodate us otherwise it is not law or philosophy