Where’s the logic? If you think she’s dating PM, you think he’s his partner. If you think she’s dating David, you think he’s his partner. There’s no coworker thing here. Gillorgan will believe it was PM and you will think it was David.

How’s that logic, then? If you believe, she’s dating PM, then you have to believe that when she said she was paid half of what her “partner” was paid, means her co-worker. If “partner” = coworker for you, then the question about the partner helping her with her issues has to mean coworker, right?

But if you believe she’s dating David, both situations equal “partner” as in partner in life, as in “partner” as she used to refereed to Mark when they were together. And somehow, he’s still her partner, because they’re still raising kids together. Maybe she was thinking about him too.

I see no PM in this reasoning, and *that* is logic.