"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.