Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including

Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. – Many people are allergic to certain sulfites. Some of these sulfites are commonly added to wine.

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. – Several winemakers do not add sulfites to their wines.
People can consume wines made by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.


Author’s logic:
Since several winemakers do not add sulfites to their wines (basis), people can consume these wines without the risk of an allergic reaction to sulfites (main point).


Gap(s) in logic:
So, these winemakers do not add sulfites to their wines. But, what if some of the allergy-inducing sulfites occur naturally in one of the ingredients of the wines?



Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A standard assumptions question.
A prediction in line with the above gap analysis: If the winemakers do not add them, sulfites will not be present in their wines. i.e., Allergy-inducing sulfites do not occur naturally in the ingredients of wines made by these winemakers.




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.
Incorrect. So these winemakers were able to achieve the objective of adding sulfites by some other means.
The main point of the argument deals with allergic reactions to sulfites.
Whether the sulfite-replacement process added other potential allergenic substances is irrelevant to the argument.
Further, is it necessary for the argument that the replacements do not come with allergies? It isn’t. The argument, as mentioned before too, focuses only on sulfites-related allergies – whether consumers would risk allergic reaction to sulfites by drinking wines made by these specific winemakers. Other allergenic substances are irrelevant.


B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
Incorrect.Irrelevant. So some forms of sulfites are more likely to produce allergic reactions than others. What about wines in which winemakers do not add wines? Will people have an allergic reaction to sulfites through those wines as well? We do not learn anything along those lines.

Also, even if all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce an allergic reaction (negation), the argument’s logic remains intact.


C. Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
Incorrect What if there are other beverages to which sulfites are commonly added (negation)? Even so, there’s no impact on the argument.
This statement is not even relevant to, let alone necessary for, the argument.


D. Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
Incorrect. This answer choice could seem attractive – If we are not precise.
The conclusion of the argument says that people would be able to consume wines made by these specific winemakers (those who do not add sulfites) without any risk of an allergic reaction to sulfites. So not any allergic reaction at all, but specifically, allergic reactions to sulfites.

Even if there are other substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction (negation), the argument’s logic is not impacted at all


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. Bang on! This one is in line with our initial thinking.
If sulfites are naturally present in the wines produces by these winemakers, and that too in enough quantity to produce an allergic reaction (negation), the author’s logic falls completely flat. The negation breaks the argument down. This answer choice strengthens the argument and is necessary for the argument.

hey GMATNinja I got your idea in option E. But i have a question related to option D. Hope you will be able to help me out.
Let's assume that there is another chemical in the wine called Chemical X which causes allergy . Even though sulfites are gone , chemical X will cause allergy . So people who thought since wine is sulfite free , Chemical X will cause the allergy. Isn't it a correct assumption ?

The author (perhaps callously) doesn't care if people have an allergic reaction to Chemical X, or any other non-sulfite substance. The author specifically concludes that people can drink certain wines "without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites." So long as this particular allergic reaction doesn't occur, the author is happy.

So, we don't need to assume anything about other allergens. Wine could be chock-full of other allergens, and the author's argument about sulfites would be unaffected. That's why (D) isn't an assumption on which the argument depends.

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Can you share your reasoning for option A?

Thanks

Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. --> Sulphites are added to wine & some people are allergic to these sulphites.

However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, --> this is such a weird way to say that winemakers dont add sulphite to their wines.

there are several winemakers who add sulphites to non of their wines --> seems so off.

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. --> because there are no added sulphites, the risk of allergic reaction is low/ zero.

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. --> does it matter? we dont care about the preservative effect, we care about the allergic reaction.

(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction. --> this is irrelevant, we dont care about the forms of sulphites but about whether the ones added to wine are going to produce allergic reactions.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. --> does this matter? no. we dont care about whether other beverages have sulphites added to them or not. what we care about is--> if wine w/o sulphites can cause an allergic reaction

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. --> hmm, compelling answer. since sulphite ares not added, the risk of allergy is low. and this statement is saying no other substances are found in the wine that could cause an allergic reaction. but do we care about the other substances? not really. (but we can keep this for now)

(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. --> again speaking about sulphites. Further, it mentions the ones which are naturally occurring. and confirms that naturally occurring sulphites won't produce any allergic reactions. so this ties things up and makes the argument 100% bullet proof.

(E) is the winner!

The argument suggests that individuals who are allergic to sulfites can safely drink wines produced by winemakers who do not add sulfites to their wines. To make this argument, certain assumptions must be true. Let's evaluate each option:

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.
This assumption is necessary for the argument to hold. If these winemakers are able to preserve their wines without using any potentially allergenic substances, it ensures that the wines produced by them are safe for individuals allergic to sulfites.

B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
This statement is not necessary for the argument. The argument focuses on individuals who are allergic to sulfites in general, rather than specific forms of sulfite. The varying likelihood of allergic reactions to different forms of sulfite does not impact the argument's main point.

C. Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
This statement is not necessary for the argument. The argument specifically addresses wines and winemakers who do not add sulfites to their wines. The presence or absence of sulfites in other beverages does not affect the conclusion.

D. Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
This assumption is not necessary for the argument. The argument is focused on sulfite allergies and the availability of sulfite-free wines. Whether other substances in wine can cause allergic reactions is irrelevant to the argument's main point.

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.
This assumption is necessary for the argument to hold. It establishes that the wines produced by these winemakers naturally contain sulfite levels that are safe for individuals allergic to sulfites. If the naturally occurring sulfite levels are low enough to avoid allergic reactions, it supports the argument's claim.

Based on the above analysis, the assumption on which the argument depends is (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. This assumption is necessary to ensure the safety of sulfite-allergic individuals when consuming wines from these specific winemakers.