GWD 6-14

shixiaoliu1986

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

答案是E，谁能告诉我一下如何解释么，看了很多遍都没看懂

法律移植

原文：people reaction to sulfites in wine, 但是现在有些 wine的生产商不在添加sulfites进去，结论：所以上述people可以放心的去饮用他们生产的wine了，且不用担心出现reaction to sulfites。
寻找假设：结论如果成立，必须排除wine里确实没有sulfites存在。试想如果生产商不添加并不意味着wine里绝对不可能还含有sulfites，正如答案e所说，如果wine里自然含有，则people还是有可能出现reaction的，所以需要排除这种情形存在。

lmiltamy

對E的翻譯問題,頭腦打結了.....麻請幫忙..
如果只是單純取非:
not 拿掉後   變成 ::: St是自然存在wine produced,所以當量大時..還是會產生allergic.

如果not存在的翻譯,我怎麼翻都怪怪 ,如下

St並非自然存在wine produced,所以大量時...還是會產生allergic... 變成邏輯不通的翻譯..

是否該翻成:::   st 非自然的存在wine produced, 就算大量生產時"也不會"產生" allergic.


請大家指教一下