I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?
Studying a subject systematically until one becomes proficient enough in an area of knowledge to be able to exercise that knowledge in the marketplace. Abraham Lincoln, for example, passed the Illinois Bar without ever having any formal legal education, or even formal secondary or higher education. He studied law on his own, not formally.
My brother-in-law graduated from college in 1982 with a B.S. in Business Administration that included few computer science courses, all of which were based on mainframe systems, and none concerned with networking. He now works as a certified (MS, Cisco, etc.) network administrator. He pursued all of those certifications on his own apart from any formal educational institution.
Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.
You assume a potential R7 body would be aimed at budget shooters who want a single APS-C body to use as a general purpose camera. That's not what the 7D Mark II was (Rebels filled that role), and it's not what an R7 would be. The RP and its successors are and will continue to be the entry level budget cameras in the RF system.
There's no need for wide angle APS-C RF lenses if the prospective buyer/user base of a niche camera intended for a specific role is primarily interested in using such a body for the "reach" it provides with telephoto lenses. We've had this conversation on various threads here several times. Very few users of 7D MarK II bodies ever put anything wider than a 70-200mm on it. Those who want to shoot wide with an APS-C body tend to stick with the x0D series or the Rebels. The x0D cameras are better general purpose cameras for most people than the 7-Series is.
The only time a lens any wider than 70mm has been on my 7D Mark II was over half a decade ago when I did AFMA calibration with a 24-105mm for future use in a potential emergency situation that has yet to materialize. If I want to go wide angle, or even normal or short telephoto, I use one of my FF bodies.
An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.
Again, you're assuming those who would buy such a camera would only own that one camera. That's not been my experience at all with pretty much every 7D owner I know. Most also own FF bodies as well or only shoot sports at longer focal lengths. They use the 7D as a specific tool for a specific use case, not as a general purpose camera.
You're also assuming that either an M7 or R7 would be cheaper than an RP or the rumored even cheaper FF RF camera coming in the future. I don't think either an R7 or an M7 would be a budget, entry level camera cheaper than the FF RP and its successors. By the end of the year or early in 2021 we should also have budget conscious non-L 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm RF lenses as well as the existing non-L 24-105mm and non-L 24-240mm.
An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will not work worth squat
for a reach focused shooter on a budget who wants to use the RF 600mm and RF 800mm lenses, which are the extreme in budget conscious telephoto reach anywhere within the entire Canon ecosystem. If Canon plans to make an M7 to be a camera for the reach focused shooter on a budget, they should have made the 600/11 and 800/11 as EF-M, not RF, lenses.
From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?
Nah, the desire for an R7, rather than an M7, is because most potential R7 buyers are either already in the RF system or plan to be in the future with a FF body in addition to a potential R7 body. They want an R7 as an additional body for a specific use case, not as a single general purpose body.
But that is all beside the point I've been making ad nauseum
that you folks refuse to acknowledge:
I'm not talking about what a very small number of consumers, compared to the much larger number of consumers already in the EOS M system, want. I'm talking about what Canon thinks will be more profitable to Canon!