How come sometimes it's okay to make an inference on conditional reasoning and sometimes it's not? For example, question two inferred that "avoided training" implies "NOT well-trained" but "reach full potential" does not imply "Pokemon evolved"? I saw the video explanation that "avoided training" suggests /training --> /well-trained, but doesn't that make exactly the sort of assumption we're asked to spot on other types of questions?
Q2 has to be the most poorly worded question in all of the examples I've seen so far. (Despite having already been taken aback by Q1 because I had to assume clear velociraptors are in fact a subset of raptors... when that is definitely not clear. e.g. koala bears aren't bears.) Question 2: inappropriately assumes that "not well-trained" means "avoided training." And it doesn't stop there, it also assumes evolution means the Pokémon reaches its full potential which is not explicitly written in the stimulus. (e.g. Ashe's pikachu never evolved, but has arguably reached the pinnacle of his potential) To correct this, the stimulus should have read "Any Pokémon that has not evolved must have not have been well-trained" I know that it makes the question way easier without the addition of new language, but the law is very litigious... and so is this exam.
@dplsawyers 2 doesn't require the idea that "not well-trained" means "avoided training." It does require the undrestanding that "avoided training" implies "not well-trained." If you avoided training, then you are not well-trained.
That's different from saying the two concepts mean the same thing or are equal to each other.
See my take in the video at about 5:20 for more on this.
@Kevin_Lin I went over the video, and unfortunately still didn't understand the logic here. Avoided is the operative word here that is necessary for this logic. Unfortunately, there is a world where the intersection of avoiding training and being well-trained exists. Well-trained just means completed satisfactory training, not all of the training. For example, a doctor can be well-trained because they went through years of medical school and residency, but they avoided doing additional training through fellowships because they did not want to spend the extra time doing so. If the stimulus had said "must not have trained at all" or even "must have avoided training altogether" then the idea of not training at all would definitely imply not well trained, and there would be no room for misinterpretation.
@MarcosGuzman415 Those threw me through a loop! It was good practice to see when to use discretion regarding indicator words because my first instinct was to treat line 2 in question 3 like an if/then statement. He says in the lesson that we'll have to think about if the indicator words are denoting something necessary/sufficient. I will definitely need more practice though!
im only able to make the symbols make sense to the context of the question but im confused on what im supposed to be doing with the chain, i feel like the examples and ''lawgic'' dont make sense because its not specific to what real lsat questions will be asking, can someone explain why use lawgic if I dont even know what a real lsat question could be asking
Okay, I have a question. So the same way it was implied in the 5th stimulus that controlling is the same as commanding, then why can't we infer that lack of extensive training, which is the negation of extensive training, means that you have more to learn?
The issue I'm trying to figure out is the relationship between "spellcasters" and "wizards". Like sure, I can assume that spellcasters are wizards since the modifying quality of "can't/can cast ninth-level", but is that formal? Without external knowledge of wizards being the same as spellcasters (fireball, clash royale, etc.). The raptor/velociraptor is a lexical relationship, it's literally in the text, but I think it's less clear with wizards/spellcasters, even with the modifiers.
I'm a little confused on the 5th question. How did we decide that controlling great power means extensive training? Couldn't one control great power without training? Is this just one of those cases where we have to use our judgement to make a reasonable assumption?
on Q5, " Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn.Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." Isn't the rule for cannot to pick either idea, then negate the idea, and then make that idea the necessary and the other the sufficient?
@LaneyWilliams Yea but the word "cannot" is included in group 4, if you look in the beginning of the page. Cannot and Can't are the same. I was confused as well. Thank you for asking the question @AliMerhi
@StarBrooks Since unless is in the sentence, both interpretations of the sentence are valid. I think when trying to parse an argument, translate a "unless" indicator last so you know which best serves the argument. In this case, since it is followed by "Any barbie who is confident in her abilities", you know you will want to translate it so that it agrees with this sentence unless there is another sentence that confirms Barbie is either not confident or not accepting the role (which there is not).
On Q3, the contrapositive is throwing me (power without corruption → lift hammer → pure → worthy) because it did not say "only beings who are pure of heart can lift it". So, just because you are not pure does not mean that you can't lift the hammer. Can anyone shed some light?
@DianeDuncan "Only" is a necessary conditions indicator, which would have made the original argument "lift hammer -> pure" not "pure -> lift hammer" instead, you'd want a sufficient condition indicator like "every" or "any". What the argument is saying is not "if you are not pure you cannot lift the hammer", it is saying "if you cannot lift the hammer you are not pure"
However, lack of an indicator doesn't mean that it isn't a sufficient condition. If you are pure of heart you can lift the hammer. Since this establishes lifting the hammer as the necessary condition, if it isn't true, then the sufficient condition cannot be either (hence, not pure).
If you don’t have more to learn, then you’re not not ninth level.
Huh! I guess I used the double negatives to cancel each other out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but instead of them cancelling each other out they simply create ambiguity.
If you don’t have more to learn, you may or may not be ninth level = if you don’t have more to learn then you’re not not ninth level.
but learnt that in this case words like "beings" and "those" have an implicit “all” at the beginning of the sentence. Sooooo when you read it as “all beings” or “all those” it actually makes sense lol
Stay focused folks! I view the challenging skill builders as "Brain Boosters" that will strengthen our thought process on how we think about LR questions to improve our overall confidence and understanding by the time we take the real test! Remember we're only going to have roughly 1 min and 27 seconds to read the prompt and make a decision! These more difficult Skill Builders at the minimum puts us in great shape to make an accurate educated guess if all else fails while trying to beat the clock! Lol
So, 0/5, and just trying to wrap my mind around chaining them. So, as I’m trying to understand this more, should I refer to the wording for sufficient and necessary first? And the different groups explained at the top—is that always the order we need to follow when reading these statements?
Like, do all of the sentences need to be broken down and put in order based on the grouping standards? Like, is it always either Group 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or how should I best understand breaking this down from Steps 1–4 and then Group 1–4?
Basically, I’m just lost on where to start with understanding this, because the wording is getting lost in translation for me. Is there a guide someone typically uses when reading these, or a system you’d recommend I follow?
See, something that really annoys me is how much you can assume two things are the same or different in sentences.
For example, in Question 4 its answer says: "It’s not clear whether being “expected to make tough decisions” implies having the ability to make tough decisions. Maybe you can be expected to make tough decisions, but you’re not actually able to make those decisions." Therefore the two are not chained.
But for Question 1, I originally thought "Clever velociraptors..." and "When a raptor..." might not be the same. Like, someone might say, "It's not clear whether the second sentence specifically talks about "The Clever Velociraptor", because if so, it should say "When THE raptor finds". We might just be talking about any raptors including the stupid ones"
In the same way, Question 5 treats "9th level Wizards command Magical Energy" and "Wizards with training can control magical energy" as a chain. If a reasoning in Question 4 is permitted, then shouldn't it say, "It's not clear whether they are the same. A wizard who can just command an energy may not be equally adept at controlling it".
@kazuhiro35 For the raptor question, "When a raptor..." encompasses all raptors -- that's why it applies to clever velociraptors." "a raptor" doesn't refer to a specific raptor; it's referring generally to raptors.
For #5, the issue is whether the ability to "command" energy implies that you have the ability to "control" it. I think it does, and we can look up definitions to debate about this. But in any case, I don't consider that the point of this exercise. It's about putting you on notice that we are expected to investigate the meanings and implications of concepts. Connections between statements are not always going to stay at "word-matching" level, where you connect if the words are the same, and you don't connect when the words aren't the same. That's what I'd focus on.
@Kevin_Lin That's fair, thanks for your advice. Question 1 was completely my misunderstanding. For Question 5, yes surely the definitions can be debated and as you say, the "word-matching" is not the real focus on the LSAT. I think I was just frustrated by how I failed so much on the "word-matching" specifically in this exercise. Because I was able to do diagrams perfectly in most questions, but Question 5 told me I was wrong solely for the "word-matching" mistake :)
I keep getting the relationships right but then mess up the order of the chain or miss out on the full meaning of the relationship (or its inverse) by trying to break things down as much as possible. For example, here are all my answers:
Q1
Raptor finds weakness -> Breaks through -> Everyone runs OR
/Everyone runs -> /Breaks through -> /Raptor finds weakness
I missed the 1st chain of Clever velociraptor -> Finds Weakness
Q2
Pokemon evolves -> Gets Stronger -> Well Trained -> Full Potential OR
I missed that getting stronger is irrelevant to the chain. Here my logic was: If A then B and If A then C, so B is sufficient for C but I guess we can't draw that relationship or maybe I'm still missing something
Q3
Pure of heart -> Lift hammer -> Worthy of power -> Wield power w/o corruption
/Wield power w/o corruption -> /Worthy of power -> /Lift hammer -> /Pure of heart
I missed that being worthy of power is the SUFFICIENT here for purity. I thought it was the necessary
Q4
/never accept leadership (aka accept leadership) -> truly confident -> makes tough decisions OR
/makes tough decisions -> /truly confident -> never accept leadership
Even though I got this chain right, I still made the mistake of saying 'makes tough decisions' for brevity/speed sake, but this still kind of defeats the true understanding of the relationship because the whole key is "EXPECTED TO"
Q5
9th level wiz -> great magical energy -> extensive training
more to learn -> /extensive training -> /great magical energy -> /9th level wiz
Here I kind of have the ideas right, but my order is a bit off. This is because when first breaking down each sentence into lawgic I did:
9th level wiz -> great magical energy
Great magical energy -> Extensive training
/9th level wiz -> more to learn OR 9th level wiz -> /more to learn (but now I realize here it can only be /A -> B OR /B -> A
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but for the last sentence of Q5, why doesn't the word "can't" trigger a necessary negation for "still have much to learn"? We were taught to pick a clause negate it in the necessary condition, but he didn't do that in the problem (unless I missed it). Just looking for clarity on this :/
@MelHart "Spellcasters can't..." is different from "Spellcasters WHO can't..."
When "can't" is part of a modifier, it's not being used in the same way as it is when it's the predicate verb of the whole statement. It doesn't provide the conditional structure to the whole statement anymore. Does that make sense?
"Spellcasters WHO can't..." just spells out the specific group of spellcasters we're getting a fact about.
#5, I did not want to assume spellcasters means wizards, so I decided not to include this one as part of the chain. My chain ignored "9th level → more to learn" but otherwise was mostly correct. I wonder if anyone else felt the same way?
@rdpitkajr Yes, I felt the same way. It was hard to make an inference but after some thought I decided to equate the two for the problem based on inference. Not sure that's the best way to go about it.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
203 comments
How come sometimes it's okay to make an inference on conditional reasoning and sometimes it's not? For example, question two inferred that "avoided training" implies "NOT well-trained" but "reach full potential" does not imply "Pokemon evolved"? I saw the video explanation that "avoided training" suggests /training --> /well-trained, but doesn't that make exactly the sort of assumption we're asked to spot on other types of questions?
If anyone is struggling like me, copy and paste this page into chatgpt (etc.) to get more practice questions like this. Really helps!
im so lost lol again
Can we get more of these?
Q2 has to be the most poorly worded question in all of the examples I've seen so far. (Despite having already been taken aback by Q1 because I had to assume clear velociraptors are in fact a subset of raptors... when that is definitely not clear. e.g. koala bears aren't bears.) Question 2: inappropriately assumes that "not well-trained" means "avoided training." And it doesn't stop there, it also assumes evolution means the Pokémon reaches its full potential which is not explicitly written in the stimulus. (e.g. Ashe's pikachu never evolved, but has arguably reached the pinnacle of his potential) To correct this, the stimulus should have read "Any Pokémon that has not evolved must have not have been well-trained" I know that it makes the question way easier without the addition of new language, but the law is very litigious... and so is this exam.
@dplsawyers 2 doesn't require the idea that "not well-trained" means "avoided training." It does require the undrestanding that "avoided training" implies "not well-trained." If you avoided training, then you are not well-trained.
That's different from saying the two concepts mean the same thing or are equal to each other.
See my take in the video at about 5:20 for more on this.
@Kevin_Lin I went over the video, and unfortunately still didn't understand the logic here. Avoided is the operative word here that is necessary for this logic. Unfortunately, there is a world where the intersection of avoiding training and being well-trained exists. Well-trained just means completed satisfactory training, not all of the training. For example, a doctor can be well-trained because they went through years of medical school and residency, but they avoided doing additional training through fellowships because they did not want to spend the extra time doing so. If the stimulus had said "must not have trained at all" or even "must have avoided training altogether" then the idea of not training at all would definitely imply not well trained, and there would be no room for misinterpretation.
Number 3 killed me what happened to group 3 and 4 rules?
@MarcosGuzman415 Those threw me through a loop! It was good practice to see when to use discretion regarding indicator words because my first instinct was to treat line 2 in question 3 like an if/then statement. He says in the lesson that we'll have to think about if the indicator words are denoting something necessary/sufficient. I will definitely need more practice though!
im only able to make the symbols make sense to the context of the question but im confused on what im supposed to be doing with the chain, i feel like the examples and ''lawgic'' dont make sense because its not specific to what real lsat questions will be asking, can someone explain why use lawgic if I dont even know what a real lsat question could be asking
@LilyMelendez Have you seen these questions in this module?
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-pta-s3-q10
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-pt21-s3-q22
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14
4/5 :)
Okay, I have a question. So the same way it was implied in the 5th stimulus that controlling is the same as commanding, then why can't we infer that lack of extensive training, which is the negation of extensive training, means that you have more to learn?
The issue I'm trying to figure out is the relationship between "spellcasters" and "wizards". Like sure, I can assume that spellcasters are wizards since the modifying quality of "can't/can cast ninth-level", but is that formal? Without external knowledge of wizards being the same as spellcasters (fireball, clash royale, etc.). The raptor/velociraptor is a lexical relationship, it's literally in the text, but I think it's less clear with wizards/spellcasters, even with the modifiers.
I'm a little confused on the 5th question. How did we decide that controlling great power means extensive training? Couldn't one control great power without training? Is this just one of those cases where we have to use our judgement to make a reasonable assumption?
@LaneyWilliams What about the second sentence?
"Only wizards who possess extensive training in the arcane can control such magical energy."
@Kevin_Lin In the explanation video, we created the following conditional statements:
9th level --> magical energy
can control --> ext. training, and in the video, we said that commanding magical energy is the same thing as controlling magical energy.
Is this because command and control practically mean the same thing?
on Q5, " Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn.Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." Isn't the rule for cannot to pick either idea, then negate the idea, and then make that idea the necessary and the other the sufficient?
@AliMerhi I think the final statement is a regular if/then statement. Can't is NOT the same as "no/none/cannot/not both"
@LaneyWilliams Yea but the word "cannot" is included in group 4, if you look in the beginning of the page. Cannot and Can't are the same. I was confused as well. Thank you for asking the question @AliMerhi
Please help @Kevin_Lin
@MichaelMilman There's a difference between "can't" as part of a modifier and "can't" as the main verb in a sentence.
"Dogs that can't jump are not happy."
[dogs that can't jump] --> not happy
That sentence isn't saying dogs can't jump. It's saying the dogs THAT can't jump aren't happy.
"Dogs can't fly."
dogs --> can't fly
So for #4, I started with /C->/Accept leadership..is there a quicker way that can tell me I should've used the contrapositive??
@StarBrooks Since unless is in the sentence, both interpretations of the sentence are valid. I think when trying to parse an argument, translate a "unless" indicator last so you know which best serves the argument. In this case, since it is followed by "Any barbie who is confident in her abilities", you know you will want to translate it so that it agrees with this sentence unless there is another sentence that confirms Barbie is either not confident or not accepting the role (which there is not).
On Q3, the contrapositive is throwing me (
power without corruption→lift hammer→pure→worthy)because it did not say "only beings who are pure of heart can lift it". So, just because you are not pure does not mean that you can't lift the hammer. Can anyone shed some light?@DianeDuncan "Only" is a necessary conditions indicator, which would have made the original argument "lift hammer -> pure" not "pure -> lift hammer" instead, you'd want a sufficient condition indicator like "every" or "any". What the argument is saying is not "if you are not pure you cannot lift the hammer", it is saying "if you cannot lift the hammer you are not pure"
However, lack of an indicator doesn't mean that it isn't a sufficient condition. If you are pure of heart you can lift the hammer. Since this establishes lifting the hammer as the necessary condition, if it isn't true, then the sufficient condition cannot be either (hence, not pure).
Got confused on Q3, though enticing trainers was a thing to write down 💀
If you’re not ninth level, you still have more to learn. I understand the contrapositive is if you don’t have more to learn then you are ninth level.
Tripping me up that you could in reality have more to learn if you aren’t ninth level and also have more to learn if you are ninth level.
Why does having more to learn mean you aren’t ninth level if all the question addresses is that those who aren’t ninth level have more to learn?
You must learn to ignore normal rational thinking in order to complete lsat tasks successfully.
@Hnelson88 "if you're not 9th level, you still have more to learn" does not mean that if you ARE 9th level, you don't have more to learn.
"If A, then B" does not imply "If not A, then not B."
"If not X, then Y" does not imply "If you are X, then you're not Y".
@Kevin_Lin thanks!!!!
@Kevin_Lin would contrapositives not work for this one?
@Hnelson88 Contrapositive are always true; they're just another way of restating a conditional.
What's the contrapositive of "If X, then Y"?
@Kevin_Lin if not y, then not x.
If you don’t have more to learn, then you’re not not ninth level.
Huh! I guess I used the double negatives to cancel each other out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but instead of them cancelling each other out they simply create ambiguity.
If you don’t have more to learn, you may or may not be ninth level = if you don’t have more to learn then you’re not not ninth level.
For Question 4's last setence, @Kevin_Lin says that there is no explicit conditional indicator, but what about " can't" ?
Isn't that a group 4 conditional indicator?
I know the can't here means the ability to make tough decisions, but isn't it also suggesting a conditional concept?
@Hfa I have this same question!!!! So confused.
q3 was a headache :(
but learnt that in this case words like "beings" and "those" have an implicit “all” at the beginning of the sentence. Sooooo when you read it as “all beings” or “all those” it actually makes sense lol
Stay focused folks! I view the challenging skill builders as "Brain Boosters" that will strengthen our thought process on how we think about LR questions to improve our overall confidence and understanding by the time we take the real test! Remember we're only going to have roughly 1 min and 27 seconds to read the prompt and make a decision! These more difficult Skill Builders at the minimum puts us in great shape to make an accurate educated guess if all else fails while trying to beat the clock! Lol
Goodluck and stay positive!
So, 0/5, and just trying to wrap my mind around chaining them. So, as I’m trying to understand this more, should I refer to the wording for sufficient and necessary first? And the different groups explained at the top—is that always the order we need to follow when reading these statements?
Like, do all of the sentences need to be broken down and put in order based on the grouping standards? Like, is it always either Group 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or how should I best understand breaking this down from Steps 1–4 and then Group 1–4?
Basically, I’m just lost on where to start with understanding this, because the wording is getting lost in translation for me. Is there a guide someone typically uses when reading these, or a system you’d recommend I follow?
See, something that really annoys me is how much you can assume two things are the same or different in sentences.
For example, in Question 4 its answer says: "It’s not clear whether being “expected to make tough decisions” implies having the ability to make tough decisions. Maybe you can be expected to make tough decisions, but you’re not actually able to make those decisions." Therefore the two are not chained.
But for Question 1, I originally thought "Clever velociraptors..." and "When a raptor..." might not be the same. Like, someone might say, "It's not clear whether the second sentence specifically talks about "The Clever Velociraptor", because if so, it should say "When THE raptor finds". We might just be talking about any raptors including the stupid ones"
In the same way, Question 5 treats "9th level Wizards command Magical Energy" and "Wizards with training can control magical energy" as a chain. If a reasoning in Question 4 is permitted, then shouldn't it say, "It's not clear whether they are the same. A wizard who can just command an energy may not be equally adept at controlling it".
Am I slow or is this reasonable?
@kazuhiro35 For the raptor question, "When a raptor..." encompasses all raptors -- that's why it applies to clever velociraptors." "a raptor" doesn't refer to a specific raptor; it's referring generally to raptors.
For #5, the issue is whether the ability to "command" energy implies that you have the ability to "control" it. I think it does, and we can look up definitions to debate about this. But in any case, I don't consider that the point of this exercise. It's about putting you on notice that we are expected to investigate the meanings and implications of concepts. Connections between statements are not always going to stay at "word-matching" level, where you connect if the words are the same, and you don't connect when the words aren't the same. That's what I'd focus on.
@Kevin_Lin That's fair, thanks for your advice. Question 1 was completely my misunderstanding. For Question 5, yes surely the definitions can be debated and as you say, the "word-matching" is not the real focus on the LSAT. I think I was just frustrated by how I failed so much on the "word-matching" specifically in this exercise. Because I was able to do diagrams perfectly in most questions, but Question 5 told me I was wrong solely for the "word-matching" mistake :)
2 and 3 were rough
I keep getting the relationships right but then mess up the order of the chain or miss out on the full meaning of the relationship (or its inverse) by trying to break things down as much as possible. For example, here are all my answers:
Q1
Raptor finds weakness -> Breaks through -> Everyone runs OR
/Everyone runs -> /Breaks through -> /Raptor finds weakness
I missed the 1st chain of Clever velociraptor -> Finds Weakness
Q2
Pokemon evolves -> Gets Stronger -> Well Trained -> Full Potential OR
/Full potential -> /Training -> /Get Stronger -> /Evolve
I missed that getting stronger is irrelevant to the chain. Here my logic was: If A then B and If A then C, so B is sufficient for C but I guess we can't draw that relationship or maybe I'm still missing something
Q3
Pure of heart -> Lift hammer -> Worthy of power -> Wield power w/o corruption
/Wield power w/o corruption -> /Worthy of power -> /Lift hammer -> /Pure of heart
I missed that being worthy of power is the SUFFICIENT here for purity. I thought it was the necessary
Q4
/never accept leadership (aka accept leadership) -> truly confident -> makes tough decisions OR
/makes tough decisions -> /truly confident -> never accept leadership
Even though I got this chain right, I still made the mistake of saying 'makes tough decisions' for brevity/speed sake, but this still kind of defeats the true understanding of the relationship because the whole key is "EXPECTED TO"
Q5
9th level wiz -> great magical energy -> extensive training
more to learn -> /extensive training -> /great magical energy -> /9th level wiz
Here I kind of have the ideas right, but my order is a bit off. This is because when first breaking down each sentence into lawgic I did:
9th level wiz -> great magical energy
Great magical energy -> Extensive training
/9th level wiz -> more to learn OR 9th level wiz -> /more to learn (but now I realize here it can only be /A -> B OR /B -> A
NOT /A -> B OR A -> /B)
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but for the last sentence of Q5, why doesn't the word "can't" trigger a necessary negation for "still have much to learn"? We were taught to pick a clause negate it in the necessary condition, but he didn't do that in the problem (unless I missed it). Just looking for clarity on this :/
@MelHart "Spellcasters can't..." is different from "Spellcasters WHO can't..."
When "can't" is part of a modifier, it's not being used in the same way as it is when it's the predicate verb of the whole statement. It doesn't provide the conditional structure to the whole statement anymore. Does that make sense?
"Spellcasters WHO can't..." just spells out the specific group of spellcasters we're getting a fact about.
#5, I did not want to assume spellcasters means wizards, so I decided not to include this one as part of the chain. My chain ignored "
9th level→ more to learn" but otherwise was mostly correct. I wonder if anyone else felt the same way?@rdpitkajr Yes, I felt the same way. It was hard to make an inference but after some thought I decided to equate the two for the problem based on inference. Not sure that's the best way to go about it.