PTC.S3.Q22 -25% Salary increase

kingmalik

I know these questions are supposed to be "gimmes" but I still struggle with SA and PSA questions, even the ones I get right I don't feel 100% confident. So I've been drilling them and I had some trouble with this one. If anyone could confirm my thought process, and/or offer any tips, it'd be much appreciated.

Context:
Fred and Dorthy are allegedly being considered for receive 25% raises.

Conclusion:
Jim argues that he should also receive a raise to at least what theirs will be or else it is unfair.

Tasha argues that it would be unfair to raise Jim's salary without also raising the 35 employees' [who have been at the company for the same length of time as Jim and earn the same salary as him].

Premise:
Jim has worked at the company longer than Fred and Dorthy have and their salaries would be higher than his with the proposed raise.

Similarly, Tasha says it's unfair to raise his without raising theirs because they have been at the company for the same amount of time as him and earn the same salary.

What I'm looking for:
I need something to justify both parties statements which both deal with fairness and raising (or not) another parties salary with equal or less tenure. So something tying pay to tenure to company. If you raise one party's salary and do not raise another party's salary who has worked at the company for the same or larger amount of time than the first party, then it is unfair.

AC:
A) It starts off correct, "in order to be fair", which would mean the contrapositive of my prediction but the second part doesn't follow. Our stimulus did not mention anything about differences or similarities in duties (although this thought did occur to me while reading the stimulus) so therefore it wouldn't justify why we have to raise Jim's and the 35 employees to raise Fred and Dorothy. Also it says "identical salaries" and Jim is arguing for a salary increase at least F and D. I'm not sure if this would be another reason to eliminate, but at the very least it doesn't match the stimulus. Eliminate (more so for the first reason I think).

Same with A that this starts off correct, but the second part also doesn't follow. Although, I didn't eliminate this right away because I initially assumed experience in the field=length of time at company. Upon final confirmation I deleted because experience in the field is much broader than what's supported in the stimulus and we just don't know anything about their experience. It could very well be the case that Fred and Dorothy have 50 years of experience in the field but have only been working at the company for 5 years, whereas Jim while he has been working at the company for 10 years, he only has 15 years of total experience in the field. Therefore, it wouldn't justify the conclusion that Jim's should be raised simply because he has worked at the company longer than they have. Eliminate.

C) The wording of this AC tripped me up because it starts with "in order to be fair" so I took that as the sufficient, but then says "if the first..." So I had to figure out which was the sufficient and which necessary. Ultimately, I understood it as if first employee worked for company longer than second --> business must pay one employee more than another, or else unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the reversal of what we needed. It establishes that Jim must be paid more than F and D because he has worked for longer than they have, whereas we need that if we raise F and D (workers with less or equal tenure), raise Jim and 35 employees (higher or equal tenure). Eliminate.

D) This is what we're looking for, as it is essentially the contrapositive of my prediction. "In order to be fair", "must never pay one more than another", "unless" establishes, If you pay one employee more than another---> first employee has worked for company longer than second. So because F and D have not worked at the company for longer than Jim, you cannot pay them more than him. Similar to Tasha as well. Correct.

E) Amount of time they work every day is not discussed nor is relevant in justifying the conclusion. Eliminate.

HoneyCabbage-1-1

Can someone else give an additional explanation, I am still struggling with seeing the difference between AC C and D, thank you! #help