“A is an interpretation of B” means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B
Let the statements be (X) [...] (Y)
Here’s your error. There’s a (Z).
(Z) “A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar.”
Here’s what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:
X ⊃ Z
X ⊃ Y
Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y
At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment:
Both of these rephrasings are potential “effectively synonymous” statements to the original question, but I hope that their answers are quite obviously inverted from each other.
Here’s your error. There’s a (Z).
(Z) “A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar.”
Here’s what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:
X ⊃ Z
X ⊃ Y
Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y
At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment: