标题: GWD-2-11 [打印本页] 作者: 20110102 时间: 2011-1-23 16:30 标题: GWD-2-11 GWD-8-Q14: 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?
?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. ?Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions. ?Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. ?Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. ?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.
答案选E我选A。。为什么选E而A不对呢？作者: Sophin 时间: 2011-1-23 17:48
我觉得这个题目很理所当然的要选E，很多人对酒里的certain sulfites过敏（即使是那些通常添加在酒里的），然而针对一些调酒师的酒，没加Sulfites，那些人也不会有过敏危险，所以就是这些酒的Sulfities量不足以使人们过敏喽 。 A的意思是这些调酒师有能力不添加使人过敏的又可以产生preservative 的效果的东西，其实也很合理，但是并不是所有的就都要加S作为Preservative呀~~所以A不是必要的，也就是不是Assumption~~~~不好意思，解释的比较乱，希望你能看懂~~作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-1-23 21:47
The answer is E. Since the question is about a necessary assumption, use the negation method. If you negate E, then sulfites ARE naturally present in the wines in large enough amount to cause allergic reaction. If this is true, those wine without added preservatives are also problematic. Then the argument that allergic people can avoid sulfites by choosing wines without preservatives will not hold.
