[求助]GWD-2-V的一道逻辑题!

jessiema28

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.

我选D,可答案说是E,请指教!

棕榈猫

Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are  commonly added to wine as preservatives说明当作防腐剂的S只是可能引起过敏的S中的一部分。文章中的一个前提是某些酒厂不在酒里添加S（做防腐剂用），结论是喝这些酒厂的酒不会过敏。中间显然少了个前提：酒厂的酒里本省不含有足以导致过敏的S （因为可能消费者除了对作为防腐剂的S过敏，还对其他的S过敏）

不知这样解释清不清楚？

jessiema28

谢谢!