Jim: I hear that the company is considering giving Fred and Dorothy 25 percent raises. That would make their salaries higher than mine. Since I have worked here longer than they have, it would be unfair to to at least what theirs will be.
Tasha: Thirty-five employees have been here the same length of time you have and earn the same salary you earn. It would be salary without raising theirs.
What this question is testing
Jim
Jim's claim:
Tasha
Tasha's claim:
Evaluate
Find the common thread. Jim wants his pay >= the pay of newer employees. Tasha wants Jim's pay = the pay of equal-tenure employees. Both are saying: pay should track tenure. Specifically, you can't pay someone more than someone else unless that person has been there longer.
Tasha's case (equal tenure) means no one should be paid more. Jim's case (longer tenure) means he shouldn't be paid less. Both are sub-cases of the same rule.
Goal
Find the principle: never pay one employee more than another unless the first has been there longer.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.