Absolutely. Experiment replication is a foundational aspect of the scientific method and I don't think any professional worth their salt would accept the validity of any experiment that did not undergo replication yielding similar results. It's a somewhat similar concept to this lesson's discussion of needing a large sample size to have an ideal experiment. We cannot just take the cases of a few individuals and apply it to the larger population.

I'd guess the lesson didn't want to delve too far into discussing all aspects of the scientific method in order to avoid overcomplicating the foundational principles of ideal experiments as they relate to testing the validity of hypotheses in causal arguments.

It may be discussed in more detail in the upcoming "Logical Reasoning" section, but I have encountered questions on practice tests that present a causal argument and ask to select an answer choice that weakens the argument where the correct answer is something along the lines of "this argument assumes the case for one instance to be the case for all instances," or some other version of that. For those questions, it's definitely helpful to know that being able to reproduce similar results is important when attempting to apply one's findings to the broader population.

I think the content of these lessons makes more sense once you start taking practice tests or looking at the specific types of questions that are asked on the LSAT (covered in later sections). There will be questions that present causal arguments, then ask you to select an answer choice that most strengthens the argument, weakens the argument, explains contradictions in the argument, etc. Without that context, it's a bit difficult to see how these specific lessons can contribute to one's success on the LSAT but because we are still in the "Foundations" section, I get why the discussions are still rather broad.

Maybe consider this a learning opportunity to develop the necessary skills for a successful career in law school and the legal field. I was not trying to be cruel in my comment, nor was I trying to be condescending. I was just wanting to point out that the majority of the work you will do in law school and as a lawyer will require massive amounts of reading (often complex materials) with no videos to guide you, so it may behoove those who are over reliant on video lessons to begin challenging themselves more by putting more emphasis on these written lessons.

A helpful tip if you really do need the videos to fully comprehend the information in these lessons, is that you can switch your syllabus to v1. Many of the old lessons for these topics still have videos with them.

With the recent format change for the LSAT, the 7Sage team is clearly putting in a consistent effort to update their lessons with the most relevant content and they've made clear they are currently working on producing videos for each of these updated lessons. This process obviously takes time and I'd imagine they are prioritizing the videos for more complex lessons than they are for foundational overview lessons. If you look ahead in your syllabus, you will see that many of the upcoming lessons do, in fact, already have videos.

Since I am genuinely trying to be helpful here, some other resources that I've found helpful (and you may already be aware of) are the LSAT subreddit which is useful if you have very specific questions about course content or practice test questions. If you're finding the content for 7Sage lacking when it comes to their videos, it may be helpful to consider transitioning to Blueprint as a study source, as they have great video lessons that come with their course.

I understand that these courses are expensive, so it's frustrating when the content feels inaccessible to one's individual learning style, but being able to comprehend information coming from myriad source types is an incredibly valuable skill, and one that will certainly benefit any career in the long run.

I mean this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you cannot get through a 3 paragraph lesson without having a video to explain the content to you, you may want to reconsider a career in the legal field.

I had this first thought as well! Remember that we learned that "some" only means more than zero and can include all so it wouldn't be a true negation. This is one of those times where you need to use logic to override your intuition and it's certainly a trap that the LSAT wants you to fall for.

I suppose it would depend on the validity of the assumptions and where they sit on the reasonability spectrum. If the tiger argument had 2 unreasonable assumptions (which they are not in the example provided) and the cat argument had 3 reasonable assumptions, then I would be inclined to say the cat argument is a stronger argument on the basis that its assumptions are more reasonable than the tiger argument.

In question 7, the claim "Most chefs can make a delicious omelet" is supported by the claim "because all chefs with extensive culinary knowledge can make a delicious omelet and most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge." Thus, we have a premise and conclusion and therefore an argument.

In question 6, none of the claims are supported by another claim and none of them claims themselves support another claim. Therefore we do not have a premise or a conclusion which means that question 6 is not an argument. Instead, it is 3 separate stand alone claims.

These 3 claims each discuss books and intellectual spaces and the final claim that "if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked" does seem like a conclusion, but it is not supported by any of the other claims. We cannot have a conclusion without a premise and we cannot have a premise without a conclusion. We cannot have an argument without a premise and a conclusion, thus question 6 is not an argument.

I don't think so. If you take the definition provided here, a premise is a statement that supports another statement (the conclusion). So the fact that it is supporting another statement is specifically what makes it a premise. Without that, it is simply just a stand alone statement. The same can be said for the conclusion. Without the conclusion being supported by another statement, it is just a stand alone statement and not a conclusion.