Necessary, because if it were not true — if students have an EQUAL or LOWER chance of learning from criticism they accept than from criticism they don’t accept — then the fact students are less likely to accept criticism from a computer would not prove that they’re less likely to learn from that criticism.

Not necessary, because the idea of “compassion” is irrelevant. We already know students are less likely to respond positively to negative criticism from a computer than when it comes from a human; whether computers can show compassion doesn’t change this fact or the inferences that one can draw from that fact.

Not necessary, because even if students don’t always know whether their critics are computer or humans, it’s still true that they are less likely to accept criticism generated by a computer. One can be less likely to respond positively or to accept criticism if that criticism was made by a computer, even if one doesn’t know that it’s from a computer. The writing style or the content of the criticism could be jarring and be perceived as less friendly, for example, even if a student doesn’t know that it came from a computer.

Not necessary, because the author never compares whether computers or humans are more or less likely to generate favorable criticism. The premises concern a comparison between the effects of negative criticism from computer and the effects of negative criticism from humans. The likelihood of producing criticism that is negative as opposed to positive is a separate issue.

Not necessary, because the author never compares whether computers or humans are more or less likely to generate favorable criticism. The premises concern a comparison between the effects of negative criticism from computer and the effects of negative criticism from humans. The likelihood of producing criticism that is negative as opposed to positive is a separate issue.