ChaseDream

标题: OG12- 84 [打印本页]

作者: Outsider1988 时间: 2010-6-12 23:33
标题: OG12- 84
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.

答案是E

当时在A,E之间纠结了很久，还是选了A

可是为什么A不对啊

A不是说那些人复制由sulfites带来的防腐作用，添加一种不会引起过敏反应的物质吗？

作者: xh65623746 时间: 2010-6-12 23:55
逻辑题：看结论，本题是：因为 add sulfites to none of the wines ，所以without risking。这个事情的前提是说，人本来喝的酒就应该没有sulfites，正是本题假设再说下 A，其实是无关项。题目已经说了不加入sulfites，但是A还是说了加入不同功能的sulfites，明显错

作者: smilingyuer 时间: 2010-6-13 09:33
看OG的解释，本题的主要论点是说sulfites 引起的allergic reaction ，跟其他的物质是否会引起allergic reaction 无关，针对的是sulfties，而不是allergic reaction

作者: Outsider1988 时间: 2010-6-13 22:01
。。。。

懂了

谢啦

作者: lmiltamy 时间: 2010-6-27 23:04
對E的翻譯問題,頭腦打結了.....麻請幫忙..
如果只是單純取非:
not 拿掉後變成 ::: St是自然存在wine produced,所以當量大時..還是會產生allergic.

如果not存在的翻譯,我怎麼翻都怪怪 ,如下

St並非自然存在wine produced,所以大量時...還是會產生allergic... 變成邏輯不通的翻譯..

是否該翻成::: st 非自然的存在wine produced, 就算大量生產時"也不會"產生" allergic.

請大家指教一下

作者: 希望来得及 时间: 2010-6-29 22:12

對E的翻譯問題,頭腦打結了.....麻請幫忙..
如果只是單純取非:
not 拿掉後變成 ::: St是自然存在wine produced,所以當量大時..還是會產生allergic.

如果not存在的翻譯,我怎麼翻都怪怪 ,如下

St並非自然存在wine produced,所以大量時...還是會產生allergic... 變成邏輯不通的翻譯..

是否該翻成::: st 非自然的存在wine produced, 就算大量生產時"也不會"產生" allergic.

請大家指教一下

-- by 会员 lmiltamy (2010/6/27 23:04:37)

我的理解是：亚硫酸盐在红酒中并不是天然存在的，只有当制造商添加足够的分量到红酒中，才会对过敏者在喝酒时引起过敏反应。

作者: lmiltamy 时间: 2010-6-30 00:47
謝謝 ...持續理解中

作者: sunnylbs 时间: 2010-12-15 06:04
A不是结论的不要条件。

作者: costan 时间: 2010-12-16 12:04
从逻辑上可以这么理解A，如果wine里面exist naturally有一定量的sulf,且会导致过敏，即使加入了某些物质可以达到保质的作用，仍然是有risk的。因此有A并不能构成充分条件来满足结论。

作者: carolinexie 时间: 2010-12-24 23:55
题干说：有些人对葡萄酒中的一种添加剂 S 过敏，有些酒场不向他们生产的酒中加S。
结论是：对S过敏的人，喝这些酒场生产的葡萄酒就不会有对S过敏的风险了。问假设。
E说在这些酒场生产的葡萄酒中，自然存在的S的数量不会达到让喝它的人产生过敏反应。

作者: EMMALIULIU 时间: 2011-12-7 17:33
我们举个例子来理解这道题，有时候对英语的理解会降低我们本身的逻辑推理能力。家长为了防治小孩儿看到黄色节目（便于理解哦），所以只让他们看儿童频道X，因为X保证他们绝不播放黄色节目。那他们播放的其他节目有多健康多积极其实是无关的，因为只要不放黄色的就行。但是在这些播放的节目中会不会有些黄色的暗示镜头呢？这个是家长们需要关注的。
不知道举例恰当否，请轻拍～

作者: mooosa 时间: 2012-2-2 23:58
ls的例子很棒~~！！

作者: InfiniteAlex 时间: 2014-9-29 21:05
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.

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)