O.G 84_Need help

[yvonne0923]

Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. These winemakers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do now involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.

B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction

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 winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.






























_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
O.A:E
Why not option D? Option D "Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction." states that there is no other substances than sulfites in wine is allergical. Also, this can also weaken the argument by using negate method here.
I'm also confusing with the O.A as well, anyone can explain?

Thanks.

[Ozlemg]

IMO E

In the argument it is mentioned that sulfites cause allergic reactions. And sulfites are commonly added to wines by wine makers. If the wine makers do not, deliberately, add sulfites to wine , there wont be any sulfite in the wine.

Choice E --> So, explicitly, it is assumed by the argument that Sulfites are not naturally present int he wine but they are added by wine makers.

Why not D coz, the case is about sulfites not other substances. We have to stay within the scope of the argument. Argument talks about sulfites not other substances.

I hope this helps!

[cans]

IMO E
conclusion of argument: winemakers can drink wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
d)we are just talking about sulfites. (whether they produce allergic reaction)
Other substances are out of scope/ irrelevant
a)it just says that an alternative preservative has been formed. Irrelevant
b) we don't know which form of sulfite produces allergic reaction, maybe the one in wine produces allergic reaction.
c)irrelevant
e) amount of sulfites in wine is not large enough to produce allergic reaction. (Thus winemakers can drink this wine)

[yvonne0923]

IMO E
conclusion of argument: winemakers can drink wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
d)we are just talking about sulfites. (whether they produce allergic reaction)
Other substances are out of scope/ irrelevant
a)it just says that an alternative preservative has been formed. Irrelevant
b) we don't know which form of sulfite produces allergic reaction, maybe the one in wine produces allergic reaction.
c)irrelevant
e) amount of sulfites in wine is not large enough to produce allergic reaction. (Thus winemakers can drink this wine)

But for assmption type questions, it's okay to bring new information in order to make the conclusion works. In this case, I still don't get why E can be the assumption, since I don't see any connection between the option and the argument. Unless I understood this problem wrongly, so I want to make sure one more thing in the argument, " However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites"...this means that people won't be allergic to sulfites because the winemakers didn't add any sulfites in the wine. Am I understanding correctly? Thanks.

[cans]

But for assmption type questions, it's okay to bring new information in order to make the conclusion works. In this case, I still don't get why E can be the assumption, since I don't see any connection between the option and the argument. Unless I understood this problem wrongly, so I want to make sure one more thing in the argument, " However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites"...this means that people won't be allergic to sulfites because the winemakers didn't add any sulfites in the wine. Am I understanding correctly? Thanks.

Yup. Sulfites are not added in sufficient quantity, so no allergic reaction.