In Question 2: Amar would not want to learn to ski if he were over 40.

If I have a negative term (like "not want to learn"), does negating the term/phrase in the contrapositive make it "not not want to learn" (aka he wants to learn, or he feels neutral about learning), or does it fully switch to "he wants to learn"?

Written as Lawgic, should the contrapositive of "Over 40 → Not want to learn" be:

Choice 1: /Not want to learn--> Over 40

Choice 2: /Over 40 --> wants to learn

Obviously I see the correct answer above, but want to know how this principle applies in general. Are we taking the opposite meaning when we negate?

On the LSAT exam, what kind of editing/formatting can you do to the text in the passage? I'm guessing you can't highlight, or cross out words?

#help

In Question 2: Amar would not want to learn to ski if he were over 40.

If I have a negative term (like "not want to learn"), does negating the term/phrase in the contrapositive make it "not not want to learn" (aka he wants to learn or feels neutral about learning), or does it fully switch to "he wants to learn"?

Written as Lawgic, should the contrapositive of "Over 40 → Not want to learn" be:

Choice 1: /Not want to learn--> Over 40

Choice 2: /Over 40 --> wants to learn

Obviously I see the correct answer above, but want to know how this principle applies in general. Are we taking the opposite meaning when we negate?

So we are to always assume that the claim P (premise) is true when answering an LSAT question?

For example, if the full statement was, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. But tigers are very cuddly and cohabitate well with people in tiny apartments," then should we assume that tigers are cuddly and will happily live in a small apartment (even though common sense tells the test taker otherwise)?

How often do LSAT test writers make a blatantly and obviously false claim that makes us question common sense?

I'm worried I'll get hung up on what is true in real life.