Wine sulfites

src_saurav wrote:My assumption -

Winemakers have an alternative to sulphites,whcih will not produce the same reaction.

The above is what i thought before looking at options.

I found the answer in A.

What wrong in this UNSTATED PRETHINK premise?PLease suggest some tips.

Whether they have an alternative is irrelevant to the argument as stated.

Premises:
- Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites added to wines
- several winemakers add sulfites to none of the wines they produce

Conclusion:
People who are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

It doesn't matter whether these wines taste good, or are well preserved. It doesn't matter whether these people will get allergic reactions to other things. The only thing that we are tasked with is finding the necessary assumption to support the conclusion stated: sulfites not added to these wines = these people will not get a sulfite allergy from these wines.

(A) 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.
Irrelevant. Maybe these wines are preserved in some other way, maybe they're not and go bad quickly. That doesn't tell us anything about sulfite allergies.

(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
Unnecessary distinction. The argument states that these people will not risk an allergic reaction. Implied: ANY risk allergic reaction. Whether that risk is comparatively smaller or larger is irrelevant.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
We don't care about other beverages. Just these wines.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
We don't care about other allergies. This argument is only concerned with "risking an allergic reaction to sulfites."

(E) 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.
Correct! People might still get an allergic reaction to sulfites if sulfites are already present in the wines. So we have to assume that sulfites are not added if we're stating "no sulfites added = no sulfite allergy."

Remember not to bring in outside information. We don't have to explain WHY the premises are true. We need to think about where the logical gap is between the premises and the conclusion.

ardz24 wrote:sulfites are not only use as preservatives but they are also antioxidants as well...

Does 10mg of sulfite added in wine can cause allergies?

Why does that matter? You don't need to assess the factual accuracy of CR questions. You just need to evaluate the chain of logic. The GMAT would hardly test you on your knowledge of food allergies.

src_saurav wrote: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?

(A) 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.

(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.

(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 winemakers in amounts large enough to
produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.


PLease explain why A is not the answer . Please explain your technique in detail

Note: this question is #642 in OG 2017, CR #101 in OG 2016, CR #83 in OG 13 / 2015