Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several wine makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. These wine makers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.
B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions.
C. Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
D. Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
E. Sulfites are not naturally present in the wines produced by these wine makers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
请问对B否定不是也削弱结论么：酒里还有其他物质会引起过敏反应，说明“过敏者可以喝不放S的酒”的结论不对了。
否定E的削弱是指“放不放S都不一定过敏”。
这两个都挺有道理的，有点晕，请高人指点一下啦
B说"不是所有的S都能产生过敏." 还有D都和文章说的没关.
E说"S不是原来就有的(就是说如果winemaker不向里加S,那wine里本身是没有S的)".
我倾向于选E.
也就是说，winemaker是不是加S可以决定酒是否会让人过敏，因此结论正确
有点明白了，D好像和加S这件事关系不太大嘛！
多谢
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |