@monmon It's a weekly thing that will run for at least a few months! Typically Mondays although sometimes other days b/c of schedule issues.

@ChanningStorgard Not sure if this might be the one: https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT111.S1.Q26

The idea of something not being addressed is a bit nuanced. I think we often conceive of this as "not mentioned? so no opinion." But that's too simple, as the problem I linked above shows. Consider too that these point at issue questions are more like Most Strongly Supported, not Must Be True. So often the right answer is something that we have the best evidence of a disagreement/agreement. This doesn't mean we can prove with outright certainty that each person must think a certain way about that answer.

Should be a few days at most! I'll update once it's out in the app.

@Aditya If you replay the game, you'll get mostly new words. Typically if a game doesn't bill itself as a daily exercise, there's a bank of content that the game pulls from. Enough that you can play the game 3 or 4 times with only very little overlap.

Would you like to see more daily content (or more content on a weekly basis perhaps)? Eventually we'd like to build out the content banks to the point that you can replay the games many times before seeing the same questions. We also have other plans related to saving progress, tracking high scores, etc. Stay tuned!

@ChanningStorgard Interesting. Are you basing this off of a question that you remember?

My sense is that we don't know what Speaker 2 thinks about A or B. Speaker 2 thinks we shouldn't do X because it would cause problem H. But that doesn't mean if a plan avoids problem H, that it's automatically acceptable.

"If causes problem H, don't do it"

doesn't mean

"If it avoids problem H, then OK to do it"

This is because Speaker 2 might see other problems besides those that relate to H that would constitute reasons against using a modified proposal.

I would also note that it's not clear Speaker 2 believes G is a worthy goal to pursue.

I'm open to the idea that perhaps implicit in Speaker 2's response to Speaker 1, we can assume Speaker 2 thinks G is a worthy goal, but I'd only consider this seriously if I absolutely need to and don't see an answer that is on safer ground.

@Nwim Yeah, we're adding that button to the Review interface, too. Should happen pretty soon.

@NathanRawn Noted, we'll get a shorter version up. In the meantime I recommend using the "Ask Sage AI" button for this question. I think our Sage AI explanations (which are based on our video and written explanations) are really good.

@RyanDaily In LawHub, RC has a Passage Only view and the Passage with Question view. LR does not. (We currently have "Passage Only" and "Passage with Question" for both RC and LR, but will move to remove this from LR to match LawHub).

@ElizabethKushner Noted. As of now, it was rolled back and is slated to come back after the August test. But we might tinker with it to avoid the problem you describe.

This is a promising idea. In the meantime, have you tried using Sage AI? I think it's very good.

@NathanRawn Are you referring to the written or video (or both)?

@ryumi I do not know for sure, but in LawHub's interface, we cannot access the accessibility option until starting a section...

This is not a feature in the LSAC interface. Could I ask why you'd like this removed? I ask only because to me this is an unintrusive feature that seems very easy/effortless to not use, should you choose to not use it. The reason it's there is to allow us to track the time you take on a passage vs. the first question for that passage. If you don't want to use it, you can click once in the interface and read the passage as you normally would.

This is intended behavior -- if the content can't fit in the area because of font size / line spacing / width of content window, then LawHub scrolls the content:

I notice that your window looks a bit narrow. If you're able to make the browser window wider, that might reduce instances where you have to scroll.

You'll see the one on LawHub. The recent dot change was inadvertent and should be rolled back soon.

You can change the font size using the three dot menu:

We will move this option back to the accessibility button on the right toolbar as soon as possible, to match how it used to appear for you.

You can change the font size using the three dot menu:

We will move this option back to the accessibility button on the right toolbar as soon as possible, to match how it used to appear for you.

@CarlosTorres Whether something is a premise depends on the intention of the author. I agree that we as readers don't necessarily know wehther concerts plus sixty matches a year is actually a lot. But what does the groundskeeper think? Why does he mention the number of concerts? Just to tell us some neutral fact about the stadium?

@EvanS There are a few minor changes we will make to match LawHub's current tester (related to information that appears when hovering over various items, as well as small formatting issues when reading a passage in "Passage only" mode). But we don't expect any other changes.

@jddaph It's not common...but if it's a restatement, it must be true!

@donut That's right.

@HannahBrading Try what AgnesAlojado suggested and see if this helps:

If you're having trouble with the new highlighting feature, here are a few things to try:

1. Update your browser to the latest version

2. Clear your cache and cookies — go to your browser settings, find "Clear Browsing Data," make sure Cache and Cookies are checked, then click Clear

3. Disable browser extensions that may interact with text selection, such as Grammarly, and try again

Many students have reported that these steps resolved the issue!

If you're still experiencing problems after trying the above, please reach out to us directly at studentservice@7sage.com and we'll be happy to help.