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 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 winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
These winemakers 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.
Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
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.
情景:很多人因为对酒中的硫化物的过敏反应苦不堪言。现在好了,有些制酒商可以不向酒中加入硫化物了,那么那些喜欢喝酒但是害怕对硫化物过敏的人可以不用冒着过敏的风险喝酒了。
推理:本题的前提和结论讲的是两件事,并且结论为果,所以为因果推理。
(因)前提:酒中不会【额外,对应答案的natural】添加亚硫酸盐。~不添加s
(果)结论:那些喜欢喝酒但是害怕对亚硫酸盐过敏的人可以不用冒着过敏的风险喝酒。without risking anallergic reaction to sulfite
特指对sulfites的过敏~不含令人过敏的s
Gap 不添加vs不含有,假设要排除掉除了添加以外途径的,自然存在的s
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论