allergic reaction

**ESeraph** · 08-30-2005, 11:31 AM

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.

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

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 wine makers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines

SPOILER: E

**likui** · 08-30-2005, 01:02 PM

Yes, I agree.

**karmaholic** · 08-30-2005, 04:43 PM

I agree with E..but i dont understand why D fails as an assumption..
I tried negation on both..and both weaken the argument (maybe).

If i negate D then D becomes: Apart from sulfites, there are substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.

This goes against: people who drink wine and are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risk to sulfite exposure.

Correct me guys.. the only thing i find against D is that it doesnt mention the wine makers .. and is general.

Thanks a lot.

Cheers!

**sumeet_rana** · 08-30-2005, 06:44 PM

You are already correct Karma

E is a better answer than D, and D is not wrong.

We know
Fact: by adding sulphites to wines there could be alergic reaction.
Conclusion: If Sulphites are not added in the wine people will not have allergic reaction.

Assumption 1 (E) : Sulphites are not already present.
Assumption 2 (D) : There are no other substances causing alergic reactions.

Assumption 2(D): is way too generic. If there are other substances they will cause allergic reactions. But what about Sulphites. Even if it proves there will still be allergic reactions, it doesnt say much about role of Sulphites. Does it ?

Assumption 1 (E) : Directly talks of problem at hand. i.e. Sulphites and the role played by them. Also the author is emphasizing and has concluded that if there are no Sulphites there will be no allergic reactions. If Sulphites are naturally present in the wine, the argument falls. Therefore appropiate answer.

The trick in such a situation is evaluate each situation carefully. Typically what happens is when we read an argument, we have a picture in mind a framed answer, of what we are expecting. Since D comes first, we tend to pounce on it. (At least I do). And sometimes make silly mistakes of not reading next one carefully (I make lot of silly mistakes).