标题: OG12-84 [打印本页] 作者: yuna77 时间: 2011-3-3 11:03 标题: OG12-84 84. Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfi tes, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfi tes to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfi tes can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfi tes. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) These winemakers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfi tes by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine. (B) Not all forms of sulfi te are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction. (C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfi tes are commonly added. (D) Apart from sulfi tes, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. (E) Sulfi tes are not naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines. 答案选E, 我为什么觉得E有消弱的作用啊 ？可是这不是消弱题啊。哪个高人能指点一下？作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-3 11:15
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.作者: sunli2829 时间: 2011-3-3 11:44
答案是E，结论和前提假设的关系是，前提取非时，会得到结论取非。E答案就是这样，为什么说某些人还是绝对不能喝这样的酒呢，是因为本身酒就足够产生这样的过敏症。至于D答案，你就不能这样说，因为（这类对 sulfi tes过敏的人，并不一定会对其他的东东过敏），因此他们还是可以喝这样的酒的作者: yuna77 时间: 2011-3-3 13:06
哦 ，原来是这样，谢啦！作者: yuna77 时间: 2011-3-3 13:06
thanks！