）。 不成熟的见解，请别见笑。欢迎继续讨论。 Question 11:
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.
Why the answer is D, not A
A sounds like a strengthen answer, just duplicated what have mentioned in the passage
D plays a role as an assumption. Not + weaken
Why D is correct? One simple example: There is no wolf in the woods. So it should be safe for kids to play there. Assumption: there is no other wild animals such as tiger or snake that pose dange to kid.
Why A is incorrect? The question does not say whether the wine has the same preservative effect. It simply tells you that no sulfite is added. The wine might be very bad because of that. We just do not care. It is out of scope unless you are given additional information in that regard.
我也觉得D无关阿。题目说Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives。
就是说，很多人只是对certain sulfites过敏，而并不是对所有可以引起过敏的物质都会过敏。这里可能用到一个common sense,大家应该都知道，对某种物品过敏的人，并不一定对其他物品过敏，每个人都有特定的过敏品种。
D：Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. 并没有说是针对sulfites的allergic.因此无关
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.说sulfites并不是天然存在于wines里面的，因此，只要wine makers不主动添加这种成份，那么这些wine就对那些allergy to sulfites的人是安全的。
就好像说，小明很怕蟑螂，因为小芳家有蟑螂，所以小明不敢去玩。然后说，小芳家没有蟑螂，只有苍蝇和蚊子。那小明为什么还不敢去呢？
makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce,
原因
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
结论
assumption 就是在结论和原因之间架桥，A很好的做到了这一点，措施可以达到目的，不改变其他，无副作用。
D out of scope, 结论之针对allergic to sulfites ，与其他allergic无关。
继续讨论。
E是错的，因为文中已经明确告诉你
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are
commonly added to wine as preservatives.. 就不应该再assume sulfites是否是天然形成产生足够量引起过敏了，因为这已经是事实了？
我觉得A很符合ETS的逻辑思路，题目结论是people can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites，前提是替代物不会引起副作用。类似于引进非洲大黄蜂不会伤害有益昆虫的题目。
我觉得Ｄ是排除他因，更象支持的答案，好像也可以作为假设？迷惑！！
但是阅读全文理解，感觉更倾向于Ａ．
请ＮＮ指点迷津
E
ADDING NOT TO E CAN MAKE THIS ARTICLE MEANINGLESS
I think the answer is between A and E, and I prefer A
Because the question has mentioned that wine needs to add preservatives.
So I think "preservatives" is a premise. In A, the wine makers have the ability to preservate win without sulfites.
同意killer34888
若A不成立，即必须involve adding any potentially allergenic
substances to their wine.，那么只要这种substances不是sulfites,原推理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.仍然可以成立，所以A不是sumption
E是错的，因为文中已经明确告诉你
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are
commonly added to wine as preservatives.. 就不应该再assume sulfites是否是天然形成产生足够量引起过敏了，因为这已经是事实了？
我觉得A很符合ETS的逻辑思路，题目结论是people can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites，前提是替代物不会引起副作用。类似于引进非洲大黄蜂不会伤害有益昆虫的题目。
我觉得Ｄ是排除他因，更象支持的答案，好像也可以作为假设？迷惑！！
但是阅读全文理解，感觉更倾向于Ａ．
请ＮＮ指点迷津
楼上的mm，我不是nn,请别怪我贸然回你的贴，但有点想法希望讨论。 提干说including，我理解为添加的硫化物只是会引起过敏的硫化物的一个子集，因此并不排除天然硫化物引起过敏的可能性，你的见解呢？这题我第一次做也选A，理由大致和你一样。 现在我选E，因为觉得和题干的信息和结论结合最紧密的只有E， A,D都能起到一定的假设作用，但是没有E直接。
这题如果换成哪个不是假设会容易些（瞎掰）。 不成熟的见解，请别见笑。欢迎继续讨论。
我选E，因为原文中说某些人会对某些硫化物产生过敏反应（包括人为添加的硫化物），如果一些酒类生产者不加入这些人为的硫化物，那么这些对硫化物会产生过敏反应的人就可以饮这些酒厂生产的酒，而不致于产生对硫化物的过敏反应（can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites）。这其中隐含的一个条件就是如果不是人为添加硫化物了，酒里面就再也不会有其他任何的硫化物了，就不会产生an allergic reaction to sulfites。E不就是这么说的吗？！这些酒里面没有天然的硫化物。所以应是E。
D如果改为Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction （to sulfites）就对了。allergic reaction与allergic reaction to sulfites是不一样的，是包含与被包含关系。即D选项的范围被不恰当地扩大了。
However, since there are several wine
makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, 这句话如何翻译?我选E，因为原文中说某些人会对某些硫化物产生过敏反应（包括人为添加的硫化物），如果一些酒类生产者不加入这些人为的硫化物，那么这些对硫化物会产生过敏反应的人就可以饮这些酒厂生产的酒，而不致于产生对硫化物的过敏反应（can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites）。这其中隐含的一个条件就是如果不是人为添加硫化物了，酒里面就再也不会有其他任何的硫化物了，就不会产生an allergic reaction to sulfites。E不就是这么说的吗？！这些酒里面没有天然的硫化物。所以应是E。
同意E是没错,不过你说反啦.根据我的理解,E选项是说酒里面是有硫化物的,只是没有足够多到会导致过敏的地步.但是因为这些数量不多的硫化物不是人工添加的,而是natural present 的,所以和题干不相悖.
我选a,
首先e，文中已经说s是添加的，所以不用去假设了
d,文中强调的是对s的过敏，如果光说过敏d就对了。
强烈支持E!
我想E是不是还可以这样理解
在制造酒的 过程中还会用一些其他的原料，虽然制造者不添加(题干中的however，后面的since只能保证制酒商不添加)，但是它用的其他原料并不能保证没有，所以这个E是一个假设排除这个可能。
我也觉得D无关阿。题目说Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives。
就是说，很多人只是对certain sulfites过敏，而并不是对所有可以引起过敏的物质都会过敏。这里可能用到一个common sense,大家应该都知道，对某种物品过敏的人，并不一定对其他物品过敏，每个人都有特定的过敏品种。
D：Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. 并没有说是针对sulfites的allergic.因此无关
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.说sulfites并不是天然存在于wines里面的，因此，只要wine makers不主动添加这种成份，那么这些wine就对那些allergy to sulfites的人是安全的。
就好像说，小明很怕蟑螂，因为小芳家有蟑螂，所以小明不敢去玩。然后说，小芳家没有蟑螂，只有苍蝇和蚊子。那小明为什么还不敢去呢？
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.说sulfites是天然存在酒里,只不过不是大量的.所以E是错的.无关.
支持lifelover和legendbird两位的意见。这道题我一开始就选A，后来也很困惑。现在觉得还是E对。一是原文中有个重要的词,including，说人们喝酒时对S过敏，包括那些作为防腐剂添加在酒里的S。这就说明喝酒时由S导致的过敏问题不仅仅来自防腐剂S这一种过敏源。所以酒里还可能有其他S过敏源，例如天然存在在酒的S。因此结论如果个别酒商的酒没有添加防腐剂S，人们就不会过敏了，另一个必要条件就是天然S的量少，达不到过敏程度。E恰好指出这个必要条件。所以正确。如果将E取非，则结论不成立。反观A，说酒商不添加防腐剂A，但通过添加其他防腐剂达到同样的防腐效果。这与结论人们喝这种酒不会产生S过敏无关。只与人们发现这种酒好不好喝有关，所以与结论无关。取非结论也能成立，即这种酒不添加防腐剂S，也不加其他防腐剂，人们可能会觉得难喝，但仍可能不产生S过敏。供大家参考。
D是貌似正确答案,太象了
鬼子是不是知道我们蒙题的方法,也会故意反者出啊
简化一下
结论：不含S,不过敏。
D:除S以外，没有其它东西导致过敏。
D选项是对结论起加强作用的ASSUMPTION.
这道题目又是一个他因的排出，对于suffits的来源一个是自然产生的，一个是添加进取的。而其他选项谈到时其他物质可能产生过敏，原文的结论是是否还会对s产生过敏
同意mymengming的，我的情况和你一样，也是一开始选了D
现在明白了，题目focus在allergic reactiion to sulfites上，D中的other substances完全是Out of Scope的
ABC都是Out of Scope或者irrelevant，剩下最合适的也就只有E了。E说酒中非天然存在的Sulfite的量大到使人allergy，如果去掉这些非天然的Sulfite，就不会出现allergic reaction to Sulfite了
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |