When students receive negative criticism generated by computer program

Dear crunchboss,

I'm happy to respond.

First, I will say that the Negation Test, while very important, is not the only method for identifying an assumption. There's also what I call the Bridge Approach, which I discuss in this blog article:
Assumptions and the Negation Test on the GMAT

In this argument, we are talking about criticism and acceptance of criticism, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, there's a logical leap to the topic of learning from criticism. Wait, what's the link between acceptance of criticism and learning from criticism? Choice (A) beautifully provides this link, and not other choice does. That's the Bridge Approach.

We can also use the Negation Test. It's extremely important to remember:
a) If we negate a choice, and this negation unambiguously and unavoidably devastates the argument, then this choice is likely to be an assumption.
b) If we negate a choice, and either the argument still works, or we can't really tell how the negation affects the argument, then this choice is NOT an assumption. If the negation produces ambiguity and uncertainty, then this choice is NOT an assumption.

Let's negate (C). Here's a strong negation.
(C) Students usually have no idea whether their critics are computers or humans.
Well, hmmm. This leaves us with a lot of questions. We know that students are more likely to accept criticism from humans---is this simply because it comes from a human, or is it more that human criticism has desirable characteristic such as empathy or sympathy that computer criticism lacks? In that case, it might be that student would continue to accept most criticism that displayed these qualities, regardless of its source. Or, by contrast, would students just stop accepting any criticism, if they were unable to identify the source? In that case, it wouldn't make a difference if humans were the source of the criticism, because students, not aware of the source, would be refusing to accept any criticism. We don't know. The negation of the statement could be a weakener or it could be irrelevant, depending on others facts we don't know. When the negation produces this kind of ambiguity, the original choice is NOT an assumption.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

I think contenders are only A and C
But C is a trap as per me
Bcz we don't know how students react when they don't know who their critics are
They may 100% not accept or completely accept

So I go with A since it breaks the conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

The argument is very clear but none of the options actually seem like a valid assumption....

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I think B is better than the rest.

My explanation is that if humans are not more compassionate than computers, then the whole logic of accepting critique from a human falls apart.



Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

We need to find the link between acceptance and learning.

Premise- The acceptanceof criticism requires that one respond positively to it.

Conclusion- Students are more likely to learn from criticism by humans than from criticism by computers.

A. Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they accept than from criticism they do not accept.

This option is explicitly stating the link, so this is the Assumption.

Correct Answer- A

IMO A is the Answer.
Negating A breaks down the Conclusion


_________________

Correct Answer is (A)
From the last line of the argument (Since the acceptance of criticism requires that one respond positively to it, students are more likely to learn from criticism by humans than from criticism by computers.) we can say that to learn one must accept the criticism and respond to it positively.

Please furnish the OA.

Added the OA. It's A. Here is an expert reply: https://gmatclub.com/forum/when-student ... l#p1694617
_________________

Got it. Thanks.

mikemcgarry
I appreciate your writing.
Perfect answer for the question and your writing in your blog that you linked.