This does not counter parent Q’s objection. It introduces regular training as a condition for adults to have computer skills, but doesn’t imply people will benefit from training as students.

This doesn’t say that learning about computers throughout school would be useful to students. Students’ ability to adapt does not itself justify their studying skills that will become obsolete in the future.

This refutes parent Q’s assumption that learning computer skills will only be useful if students use the exact same technologies as adults. It implies those skills will be transferrable to later computer technologies.

This analogy presents a weak counter to parent Q’s claim. It’s possible the way people interact with computers will change more significantly than the way people interact with vehicles.

This gives a reason to support parent P’s conclusion, but does not address the objection raised by parent Q. If students are learning irrelevant skills, their training will be pointless regardless of how much time they have to learn them.