|
这是一道假设题。假设题可以用无关词排除法、去not则weaken法(否定句)、架桥法（肯定句）来做。这里用的是排除法和去not则weaken法。 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. 潜台词：除sulfite之外的其他allergenic substances，题目并未涉及，故排除 B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions. 潜台词：除sulfite之外的其他allergenic substances，题目并未涉及，故排除 C. Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. 潜台词：其他的饮料没有加sulfites，题目并未讨论其他的饮料，故排除。
D. Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. 潜台词：Apart from是个很可爱的词汇，直接表明D选项是讨论sulfites以外的物质，而题目并未讨论其他物质，故排除。 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. 就剩下E了。但是，令人困惑的是E读完后感觉与题目的前提冲突，题目的前提已经说 add sulfites to none of the wines－制造商没有添加sulfites,但E好像又说制造商添加了少量的sulfites,与前提矛盾。实际上，E有个词很重要－naturally，意思是sulfites是在wine本身就含有的，而不是厂商作为防腐剂后添加进去的，naturally这个词使得E选项避开了与前提发生矛盾。 E如果先把not去掉的话，读起来会更容易理解： Sulfites are 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. Sulfites在厂商制造的酒中自然含有的量（不是作为防腐剂后添加进去的）足够大到使人过敏。 也就是说，Sulfites即使不作为防腐剂添加到酒里，那些过敏的人还是不能喝这酒。 然而题目结论说：厂商不将sulfites作为防腐剂添加到酒里, 那些对sulfites过敏的人就可以喝。 E去掉Not后weaken了结论，故E为正确答案。
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-7 12:14:01编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-4-1 18:58:00
