Q22 - Jim: I hear that the company is considering...

[vincent.m]

Hi can someone explain why D over C? I have an explanation of my own and that is that the reason D is correct is because it is saying if someone hasn't been there as long as another person then they can not be paid more than more tenured individual. All Jim wants is an amount that is at least equal, not more, which is why C is incorrect because it says that one must always pay the more tenured person more money which isn't want Jim wants necessarily. Is this correct?

Thank you!

[maryadkins]

We want to justify BOTH statements.

So Jim is saying: It would be unfair to raise their salaries higher than mine because I've worked here as long.

Tasha says, but 35 employees have been here the same as you and make the same as you and that'd be unfair, too. Hmm. Let's go through the answer choices.

(A) seems out of scope"”duties? We just know about length of employment.

(B) seems okay kind of...but experience in the field feels a bit broad. Move on for now.

(C) looks pretty good! Does it support Jim's point? Yep. Does it support Tasha's? Yep. Keep.

(D) wait. This also looks good. So what's the difference between (D) and (C)? We'll come back to it.

(E) is irrelevant because we're not talking about time per day.

Back to (C) versus (D):

Well, (C) is saying: worked longer --> must get paid more. And (D) is saying: if paid more --> should have worked longer (contrapositive: if haven't worked longer --> not paid more). Which of these are Jim and Tasha saying? Well, Jim is saying that if you raise their salaries and they haven't worked as long --> unfair. In other words, the contrapositive of (D): If you haven't worked longer, you shouldn't be paid more.

Jim isn't actually saying (C)"”that everyone who has worked longer should be paid more. He's arguing about who SHOULDN'T be paid more. So is Tasha.

Your explanation is good, I think...it's another way of saying this!