This doesn't look like a traditional inversion of configuration:

![enter image description here][1]




At first I dismissed the textbook author as making a typo. But then I realized that this "typo" was repeated throughout the solutions manual. 

So I tried drawing a Sawhorse projection of the textbook's answer and my answer, and I found that both are equivalent. 

So would my answer also be acceptable? In my answer I change the methyl from a wedge to dashes and the hydrogen from dashes to wedge and I place the SH group appropriately. 

![][2]


  [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/RTxia.png
  [2]: https://i.sstatic.net/4qQby.jpg