Critical Reasoning

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 if true strengthens the argument?

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.

I am over D vs E

IMO E

Scope of the argument is "the allergic reaction to certain sulfites". The conclusion is " 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"

D. It is an attractice choice. However, it's out of scope.
E. Assumption - The sulphites are not naturally present.

First think that Sulfites can be artificially added as well as naturally present (If you don't no problem)

So, you've picked D and E as contenders.

Look at E first, just read "sulfites are not naturally present". It says something about natural sulfites. So you realize that sulfites can be both natural and artificial. The stimulus doesn't say anything about natural sulfites. Therefore, presence of natural sulfites can make wine harmful. Read further, it says the concentration is not strong enough to cause a reaction. So it dismisses the possibility that the wine can be harmful. Hence, strengthens the argument.

Hop over to D which says "apart from sulfites", so it includes sulfites totally (artificial + natural). Read on. It says no other substance causes reaction. Alright, but what about natural sulfites? Doesn't say anything. So, doesn't strengthen the argument.

Which of the following if true strengthens the argument?

my pick D..........
lets think for a moment that there are substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction besides sulfites........so whether one drinks sulfite free wine or wine added with sulfite........it would make no difference...the allergic reaction would happen...........and the argument will fall apart.......so as D states........Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. ...this strengthens the argument

gmatrix wrote:

Which of the following if true strengthens the argument?

my pick D..........
lets think for a moment that there are substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction besides sulfites........so whether one drinks sulfite free wine or wine added with sulfite........it would make no difference...the allergic reaction would happen...........and the argument will fall apart.......so as D states........Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. ...this strengthens the argument

True. However, the stimulus specifically talks about allergic reaction to sulfites.

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.

hi...........
the conclusion is:people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by
these wine makers(read-wine makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce) without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

but what if other substances present in wine give rise to an allergic reaction.........will this conclusion apply....no... hence imho D strengthens the argument....that sulfite free wine is free of risk as the only causative agent of allergic reaction i.e.sulfite is removed/not added

gmatrix wrote:hi...........
the conclusion is:people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by
these wine makers(read-wine makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce) without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

but what if other substances present in wine give rise to an allergic reaction.........will this conclusion apply....no... hence imho D strengthens the argument....that sulfite free wine is free of risk as the only causative agent of allergic reaction i.e.sulfite is removed/not added

Let me try again

First - Stimulus is talking about reactions to sulfites. Scope is only reaction to sulfites not reaction to other substances.
Second - Wine makers who add no sulfites. Read carefully. Wine makers are not adding sulfites. What if sulfites are already present?

Hope it helps

@g00fy - I think you are taking E in other way. Let's say 10 ml sulphites are necessary to produce allergic reaction. As per E one bottle of (I am just giving an example) wine contains 9 ml sulphites. Ok, good, we are still fine with this. Person drinks one bottle of wine (which is not possible at one time) he is not prone to allergic reaction. Good. Next day he drinks one more bottle and now total sulphites are 18 ml in his body. Let's say because of the 24 hrs pass last days 9 ml sulphites reduced to 5 ml in person's body. But he takes 9 ml today again, so cumulative sulphites are 14 ml, and these 14 ml sulphites will be enough to produce allergic reactions.

On the other hand if you see stimuli, it clearly says that sulphites are added as preservative. That means sulphites (natural or manual) are not already present in wine. In that case D holds true and makes sense.

g000fy wrote:First think that Sulfites can be artificially added as well as naturally present (If you don't no problem)

So, you've picked D and E as contenders.

Look at E first, just read "sulfites are not naturally present". It says something about natural sulfites. So you realize that sulfites can be both natural and artificial. The stimulus doesn't say anything about natural sulfites. Therefore, presence of natural sulfites can make wine harmful. Read further, it says the concentration is not strong enough to cause a reaction. So it dismisses the possibility that the wine can be harmful. Hence, strengthens the argument.

Hop over to D which says "apart from sulfites", so it includes sulfites totally (artificial + natural). Read on. It says no other substance causes reaction. Alright, but what about natural sulfites? Doesn't say anything. So, doesn't strengthen the argument.

Let's say because of the 24 hrs pass last days 9 ml sulphites reduced to 5 ml in person's body.

You're overanalyzing. You're assuming that 9ml would not reduce to 0ml but would settle to an arbitrary value. The best answer is the one that doesn't require you to make any assumptions.

Govi, what is OA?

reply2spg wrote:Govi, what is OA?

bhai,

D is out of scope and E is OA.
Sorry sudhanshu.. even i too thought that way fo r D but later i when cross checked conclusion, E connects to it well.

g000fy wrote:First think that Sulfites can be artificially added as well as naturally present (If you don't no problem)

So, you've picked D and E as contenders.

Look at E first, just read "sulfites are not naturally present". It says something about natural sulfites. So you realize that sulfites can be both natural and artificial. The stimulus doesn't say anything about natural sulfites. Therefore, presence of natural sulfites can make wine harmful. Read further, it says the concentration is not strong enough to cause a reaction. So it dismisses the possibility that the wine can be harmful. Hence, strengthens the argument.

Hop over to D which says "apart from sulfites", so it includes sulfites totally (artificial + natural). Read on. It says no other substance causes reaction. Alright, but what about natural sulfites? Doesn't say anything. So, doesn't strengthen the argument.

Good work Goofy,
You really going to the details.
Very impressive.