I agree with @ngir1293288.

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