ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 931|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG 16-101 逻辑入门渣渣 求大神指导

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2016-8-3 17:50:07 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式

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?


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.

OG解释是argument的结论没有说明过敏反应与其他物质关系,因此D选项不对,但是从自己的逻辑出发:
喝不含sulfites的酒就不会过敏:D 酒内不含别的导致过敏的物质      E酒内自然存在的sulfites不到导致过敏的水平
觉得两者都是应该成立的,想请问各位NN,是不是因为我的思维方式不对?求大神们指导

收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2016-8-3 21:46:03 | 只看该作者
allergic to sulfites—>  can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

重點是”sulfites“這個元素
今天討論sulfites造成過敏
D提到其他物質,所以是無關選項

就像我今天告訴你我對花生過敏,所以不能吃這個花生巧克力
你卻探討巧克力裡面有沒有別的東西會造成我過敏
而不是緊扣“花生”這個重要的元素
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2016-8-4 12:03:46 | 只看该作者
ai559031 发表于 2016-8-3 21:46
allergic to sulfites—>  can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic re ...

大概明白了  谢谢~
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-5 11:30
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部