GWD-2-11

won872

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.

First, the cited sentence is the main argument; preservation is mention in the premisis not A

Second, people, who are allergic to S, are not risk to allergic reaction to S by comsuming wines not contain S.

Logic

people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites

 condition:   S -> (S -> A) , (S -> A) -> S 

can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

 Conclusion: ~S -> ~ (S -> A)

proof:  ~S -> ~ (S -> A)  =>   (S -> A) -> S  1)

           S -> S -> A => S | A -> S  2)

           1) =2)

Proof of A -> S is not necessary condistion, as the proof procedure does not requier A -> S, therefore A -> S is not an assumption needed. A -> S means All allergi are attributable to Sulfites, which interm means people are not allergic to other substance other than S. Same logic nor does P (preservative) play a role in th argument.

河西学校

好帖，每次看到老帖都很多感触，想知道

以前在帖子里留名的人都跑哪读书去了。。。

毛妖妖

fiona_hq

up

浅草南

原来这样，看清结论很重要，一开始选了D……
看完帖子后学到很多……