a difficult RC prob.

[Jason.tuyj]

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.


Why D is out, I know E is direct point, but why D is out. Why E is more compelling than D?, Pls explain...

[myfinalchance4mba]

Since the paragraph talks mainly about Sulphites as preservatives,E is better answer than D.According to the paragraph , sulphites are not added by few wine makers,so people allergic to sulphites can drink wines produced by these wine makers.But main assumption of the agrument lies in the fact that naturally occuring sulphites is less than the minimum level which causes allergic reactions.

Hope this helps!

[tim]

Thanks, myfinalchance. For the record, this is a CR problem, not a RC problem..