okay... one of the biggest priorities of CR is to see whether you can apply
everyday common sense to these passages.
you know that, right?
you need to think about the things you're saying here through the lens of ordinary, everyday common sense.
like this...
Here it only says less than, so I assumed a case where average length of employee staying with Renco is just a little less than with Garnet. Thats the reason I took above examples of 49 years and 50 years.
by doing this ^^ you are obviously violating the intent and spirit of this answer choice.
analogy:
if i say something like
daniel is 22 and is open to the idea of getting married, but he hasn't found any woman who's serious enough about relationships. do you think he'd find someone more easily if he were older?...common sense here:
when i say "if he were older", that obviously doesn't mean "what if he were 23 instead of 22?" -- and, if this were an actual conversation, people would think you were
literally crazy if that's the example you used for "older".
it's just ... understood that i mean something like "if he were 30 or 35".
same thing here -- in any REASONABLE, PRACTICAL, real-world interpretation, 49 years and 50 years are basically equivalent timeframes.
...a 49-year-old and a 50-year-old are, for PRACTICAL purposes, THE SAME AGE.
...a 19-year marriage and a 20-year marriage are, for PRACTICAL purposes, marriages of the SAME length.
...an annual salary of $95,000 and an annual salary of $100,000 are, for PRACTICAL purposes, basically indistinguishable.
if you were going to pick a
common-sense example of "employees stay with one company for less time than with the other company", you'd pick something like, say, 10 years and 25 years.
...or some other
SIGNIFICANT difference.
