Brooks says she is currently unhappy in her job but doesn't know if the risks of quitting are worth it. Morgenstern responds by claiming that the only risk of quitting is Brooks being unhappy, which would happen if she did not find another job. Morgenstern reasons that since Brooke is already unhappy, she might as well quit because she is currently experiencing the risk of doing so anyways. In other words, Morgenstern says Brooks is already unhappy and the worst that could happen if she quit is being unhappy, so the risk is equal to her current experience. This allows Morgenstern to conclude that Brooks "might as well just quit" because she would either experience the same unhappiness she is already feeling or she would feel better, but she would not feel worse.
We may notice a jump in logic when we read this exchange. What if Brooks is only slightly unhappy in her current job but would be significantly unhappy if she quit and was unable to find employment elsewhere? In this case, there is a relevant difference in the varying levels of unhappiness and we cannot say that the risk of quitting is equal to the current experience. Morgenstern's conclusion is based on the false assumption that all feelings of unhappiness are equal, and the correct answer will point this out. Answer choice (A) does just this, as it states that Morgenstern "fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance." Therefore, (A) is correct.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
