Every time I read a stimulus on the LSAT, I try to adhere to the idea that I must take all the facts the LSAT provides at face value (i.e. outside of the context of the real world) and focus rather on the logical structure than the legitimacy of the facts irl. However, I'm not sure where idioms fall into this context. Are we supposed to interpret them literally? I know this is GOT so the LSAT might not rely on idioms as much, but in this case for example, we could assume that cersei could be more than half as bright as she thinks she is or less, the argument does not specify. But a reasonable person would assume that Olenna is not implying the former.
I try to think of it this way:
In LSAT logic, the negation of "hot" is not "cold" but "/hot"... similarly, I interpreted it as:
Olenna: Cersei is 50% as smart as Cersei thinks she is → leave
Cersei: /leaving
Conclusion: Cersei is /50% as smart as she thinks she is. (whether it is more or less, we do not know)
Am I thinking to much into this? #help
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
I agree with @.
Every time I read a stimulus on the LSAT, I try to adhere to the idea that I must take all the facts the LSAT provides at face value (i.e. outside of the context of the real world) and focus rather on the logical structure than the legitimacy of the facts irl. However, I'm not sure where idioms fall into this context. Are we supposed to interpret them literally? I know this is GOT so the LSAT might not rely on idioms as much, but in this case for example, we could assume that cersei could be more than half as bright as she thinks she is or less, the argument does not specify. But a reasonable person would assume that Olenna is not implying the former.
I try to think of it this way:
In LSAT logic, the negation of "hot" is not "cold" but "/hot"... similarly, I interpreted it as:
Olenna: Cersei is 50% as smart as Cersei thinks she is → leave
Cersei: /leaving
Conclusion: Cersei is /50% as smart as she thinks she is. (whether it is more or less, we do not know)
Am I thinking to much into this? #help