Hello, everyone. Someone asked me about this question recently via PM, and, in light of the fact that no other Expert has posted an analysis, I thought I would share my thoughts in an effort to assist the community. The question could not be more straightforward. We need to weaken the argument. The tricky part is that in CR, you have to keep in mind just what that argument says, or you can veer into associative reasoning and end up selecting an incorrect answer.
gmatJP wrote:
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers producing wine to which no sulfites are added, those who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink these wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
- The first line provides background information about many people: they suffer an allergic reaction to sulfites... commonly added to wine.
- The second line follows a premise-conclusion format: because several winemakers are not adding sulfites to their wines, the same people who are allergic to sulfites can consume these wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Interesting. My thoughts are already racing, but I typically like to see what the answers have in store before I jump to any conclusions.
gmatJP wrote:
A. Sulfites occur naturally in most wine.
The argument is based on wines
to which no sulfites are added (my italics), but if
most wine has naturally occurring sulfites, it is still quite possible for someone who is allergic to sulfites to consume such wine and experience, well, an allergic reaction. Thus, the argument that sulfite-allergic consumers can drink the wine with no added sulfites
without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites is not as strong as it had seemed. This is just what we are looking for.
gmatJP wrote:
B. The sulfites that can produce an allergic reaction are also commonly found in beverages other than wine.
This should be an easy elimination. If the argument is based on consumers drinking wine, then we are not interested in other beverages or what they may contain.
gmatJP wrote:
C. Wines without added sulfites tend to be at least moderately expensive.
We would have to employ one-step-removed logic to try to get this one to work. I suppose the thinking would go that if people thought the wine with no added sulfites was too expensive, they might resort to purchasing and consuming added-sulfite wine and subsequently experiencing allergic reactions to the sulfites. But, of course, the argument is not based on drinking any wine except for the no-added-sulfite wine, so this answer choice is an irrelevant concern.
gmatJP wrote:
D. Apart from sulfites, there are other substances commonly present in wine that can trigger allergic reactions.
I see a few people discussing (D) above, but remember, you have to stick strictly to the argument presented to strengthen or weaken it. Here, we are not interested in
allergic reactions in general, or, in fact, those brought on by
any substance other than sulfites. Notice how the passage—the argument—ends: [sulfite-allergic consumers]
can drink these wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites (again, my italics). The issue, then, is not one of a general allergic reaction, and we can see off this answer choice.
gmatJP wrote:
E. Wine without added sulfites sometimes becomes undrinkable even before the wine is sold to consumers
To put it plainly, we are not interested in
undrinkable wine. The argument is based on a certain group of people
[drinking] these wines. We cannot weaken this argument if people are not drinking such wine. Furthermore, notice the vague
sometimes. This lack of qualifying language should have you thinking,
What about other times? If
some wine
without added sulfites makes its way to consumers, what then? Will this information weaken the argument? Not at all.
In the end, only (A) fits the linear logic of the passage and question stem. This question can help us appreciate just how important it is to use the exact phrasing of an argument or conclusion to sound the answers against: do
not paraphrase (or you will be caught out).
Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew