Pls help an expert, dying here

I think the answer should be E because the argument assumes
that if the wine makers do not add Sulfites, the wine will
not contain Sulfites.

D speaks of allergic reactions to substances other than Sulfites
and that is not what the question asks.

Are you sure about the OA ?

The stimulus is talking about the allergic to sulfites, so the assumption cannot deal with the allergic from some other source.

I think the answer should be E.

@avik.ch: You are right

The 1st line of the CR-" Allergic To sulphites"

(D) tells about allergy by some other means

(E) is CORRECT

A) It's clear from the option that they are not adding sulfites rather they are actually using some non-allergenic substances,
but what if sulfites are naturally present in wines? What if this quantity of naturally present sulfites in wine is sufficient enough to cause allergic reactions?

So, discard this option.

B) This does not say anything about wine produced by wine makers who do not add sulfites. Discard this too.

C) Irrelevant.

D) To test if a statement is an assumption required for an argument,let's try to negate it. If the argument falls apart, it means the argument requires that assumption.

Here, if we negate option D, we get:
Sulfites are 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.

It's quite clear that in view of the above statement, the conclusion will definitely fall apart.

E) This is wrong because we have to look for allergic reactions caused by sulfites only.
Just refer to the following parts in the excerpt: ...but are allergic to sulfites...without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites

whereas option E focuses on simply allergic reaction, NOT specifically allergic reaction due to sulfites. Hence, I discard this option.Even if we assume it to be correct, it's still not as strong as option D.

I'll go with Option D.

[email protected] wrote:A) It's clear from the option that they are not adding sulfites rather they are actually using some non-allergenic substances,
but what if sulfites are naturally present in wines? What if this quantity of naturally present sulfites in wine is sufficient enough to cause allergic reactions?

So, discard this option.

B) This does not say anything about wine produced by wine makers who do not add sulfites. Discard this too.

C) Irrelevant.

D) To test if a statement is an assumption required for an argument,let's try to negate it. If the argument falls apart, it means the argument requires that assumption.

Here, if we negate option D, we get:
Sulfites are 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.

It's quite clear that in view of the above statement, the conclusion will definitely fall apart.

E) This is wrong because we have to look for allergic reactions caused by sulfites only.
Just refer to the following parts in the excerpt: ...but are allergic to sulfites...without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites

whereas option E focuses on simply allergic reaction, NOT specifically allergic reaction due to sulfites. Hence, I discard this option.Even if we assume it to be correct, it's still not as strong as option D.

I'll go with Option D.

Refer OG-12 CR #95.