When students receive negative criticism generated by computer programs, they are less likely to respond positively than when the critic is a human.
Conclusion
Students are more likely to learn from criticism by humans than from criticism by computers.
Evidence (since)
Accepting criticism requires that one respond positively to it.
Students are less likely to respond positively to computer criticism than to human criticism.
Evaluate
The two premises have an overlapping concept, "responding positively". When we're doing Inference questions (e.g. Must Be True, Most Supported), we look for these overlapping concepts as a way to synthesize two claims.
If we say, "Responding positively is required for accepting criticism" and we say, , then what can we infer by combining?
We can infer .
Any time the premises can be synthesized, they should be. LSAC is testing our ability to connect related thoughts and understand the implication of combining them.
So, from our two premises, it's been established that: students are more likely to accept human criticism than to accept computer criticism.
Now the conclusion comes, and it has a New Concept in it: students are more likely to learn from human criticism than from computer criticism.
What is being assumed in going from the Premise to the Conclusion?
Goal
, or maybe something more conditional like, "Learning from criticism requires accepting it".