Inversion of Configuration - Opening of Epoxide This doesn't look like a traditional inversion of configuration:



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.
It's slightly difficult for me to see clearly, but your drawing appears to be correct, and it corresponds to a $180^{\circ}$ rotation about the $\ce{C_1-C_2}$ bond axis relative to the textbook rendering ($\ce{C_1}$ being the carbon bearing the oxygen atom and $\ce{C_2}$ the sulfur atom, respectively). An unambiguous method of determining whether the two representations are equivalent is to assign the absolute configuration for the chiral carbon(s) in question. It may also help to use other projections (Fischer or Newman) if visualization of bond rotation and stereochemistry in the skeletal formula becomes difficult, as you did with the Sawhorse projection.