Loading...
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.
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
The argument starts by establishing a problem (sulfite allergies from wine), then immediately jumps to a proposed solution (sulfite-free wines from certain winemakers). It's a simple problem-solution structure.
People allergic to sulfites can safely drink wines from winemakers who don't add any sulfites to their wines.
The conclusion relies on the basic logic that if sulfites cause the allergic reaction, and some wines contain no sulfites, then those sulfite-free wines should be safe. However, this assumes that sulfites are the ONLY potential source of allergic reactions in wine for these people.
Assumption - We need to find statements that must be true for the conclusion to hold. If any assumption is false, the conclusion falls apart.
The argument makes specific claims about sulfite-free wines being safe for allergic people, and winemakers who add 'none' of the sulfites to 'none' of their wines.
To find assumptions, we'll look for ways the conclusion could fail while keeping the facts intact. The conclusion says sulfite-allergic people can safely drink wines from makers who add no sulfites. What could make this conclusion wrong? We need to identify gaps between the premises and conclusion.
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.
This choice discusses whether these winemakers found alternative preservatives that aren't allergenic. However, the argument's conclusion doesn't depend on whether they found perfect substitutes for sulfites or whether their wines are well-preserved. The conclusion is simply that sulfite-allergic people can drink these wines without sulfite reactions. Even if these wines spoiled quickly or contained other allergens, they could still be safe from sulfite reactions specifically. This isn't an assumption the argument requires.
Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
This talks about different forms of sulfites causing different levels of allergic reactions. But the argument treats sulfite allergies as a general category and doesn't make distinctions between different types of sulfites. The conclusion works regardless of whether all sulfites are equally problematic or whether some are worse than others. The argument simply focuses on avoiding sulfites altogether, so this distinction isn't assumed.
Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
This claims wine is the only beverage with added sulfites. But the argument is specifically about wine and people who want to drink wine. Whether sulfites exist in other beverages is completely irrelevant to whether sulfite-allergic people can safely drink wines from certain winemakers. The argument's scope is limited to wine, so this isn't a necessary assumption.
Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
This suggests there are no other substances in wine that cause allergic reactions besides sulfites. However, the argument's conclusion is specifically about avoiding sulfite reactions, not about avoiding all possible allergic reactions. Even if wine contained other allergens, people could still drink these wines without risking sulfite reactions specifically, which is exactly what the conclusion claims. The argument doesn't assume wine is free from all allergens.
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.
This addresses whether sulfites occur naturally in these wines in amounts that could trigger reactions. This is crucial because the argument only tells us these winemakers don't ADD sulfites - it says nothing about naturally occurring sulfites. If these wines naturally contained enough sulfites to cause allergic reactions, then the conclusion that sulfite-allergic people can safely drink them would be false. For the argument to work, we must assume that natural sulfites aren't present in reaction-causing amounts. This assumption is essential to bridge the gap between 'no added sulfites' and 'safe for sulfite-allergic people.'