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。
果因结构:not+他因weaken (没有其他原因导致对s过敏的人们喝这种酒)
原因:s是酒防腐剂的一种成分,有些人喝了这样的酒会过敏
结果:酿酒师没有添加s到酒中,喝这种酒的人不会对s过敏
D选项:’除了s, 没有其他物质引起过敏症‘ 与文章的结论‘没有人对s的过敏’无关
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论