Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including

Assumption question: Find the conclusion. See what is essential to it. If stuck between two options, use assumption negation technique (ANT).
Let me first remind you that an assumption is a necessary missing premise. It is essential to the conclusion. If assumption becomes false, conclusion becomes false too (that is why ANT works. Negate the assumption, conclusion goes for a toss)

Conclusion: people allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers (those who do not add any sulfites to their wine)
without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites

i.e. if a winemaker does not add sulfites, you will not suffer from a sulfite allergic reaction by drinking his wine.
My question here is, isn't it an assumption that sulfite is not naturally present in wine even if it not added. May be grapes have it, may be during fermentation it is formed. The point is, we don't know whether it is naturally present. So if the argument says that a winemaker doesn't add sulfites so you will not suffer from a sulphites reaction, he is assuming that sulfites are not already present.
If you want to negate option E and see,
Negated (E) - Sulfites are naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
If this is true, our conclusion falls apart. Hence this is the assumption.

Now why is D not correct?
(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.

The conclusion says - You will not suffer an allergic reaction from sulfites. It doesn't say - You will not suffer any allergic reaction. Even if there are other substances that give rise to allergic reactions, you will still not get an allergic reaction from sulfites. So this is not an assumption.
_________________

Start with the conclusion: "people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by [one of the several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce] without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites."

Whoa, that conclusion takes up most of the passage. So let's make sure we understand the argument:

• Sulfites are commonly added to wine as preservatives.
• Many people suffer an allergic reaction to those sulfites.
• If a winemaker adds sulfites to his/her wines, then a person with a sulfite allergy would want to avoid those wines (to avoid risking an allergic reaction to the sulfites).
• But several winemakers do NOT add sulfites to any of the wines they produce. So, according to the author, people with sulfite allergies can drink these wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

But notice the little word "add" in that last bullet. Just because the winemakers did not add any sulfites, does that necessarily mean that the wines are sulfite-free? Which of the following is an assumption on which the author's argument depends?


We don't care about other allergenic substances. We only care about whether people who drink these wines could suffer an allergic reaction to sulfities. (A) is irrelevant, so eliminate this one.


This is not a required assumption. Maybe some forms tend to produce allergic reactions more than others. So what? If we don't add any sulfites to our wines, can people with sulfite allergies safely drink our wines? (B) has no impact on the argument, so eliminate this one.


Other beverages might have sulfites. This argument is only concerned with wines to which no sulfites have been added. (C) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.


As with (A), we don't care about other possible sources of allergic reactions. As long as the wine drinkers cannot suffer from an allergic reaction to sulfites, then the author's reasoning is sound. This is true regardless of whether the wines contain other substances that cause allergic reactions. Eliminate (D).


Ah ha. The winemakers did not ADD any sulfites, but what if sulfites are naturally present in their wines? In that case, their wines would have sulfites even though the winemakers did not ADD any sulfites. If the naturally-occurring sulfite amounts are large enough to produce an allergic reaction, then wine drinkers with the allergy WILL run the risk of suffering an allergic reaction when they drink these wines.

In order for the argument to hold, we have to assume (E) is true. Thus, (E) is the best answer.
_________________

Solution
passage analysis   
                                               
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. These sulfites include (but are not limited to) the ones that are added to wines as preservatives.
(we can infer here that there are other types of sulfites too which are not added to wines but, people are allergic to them)

 However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce,

But there are several wines-makers who do not follow this practice of adding sulfites to their wines.

 people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these

And so, if people allergic to sulfites want to have wines, they can drink wines made by these wine-makers.

winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites

And thus they would not face the risk of allergic reaction to sulfites.

Conclusion: People who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites (including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives) can drink wines produced by winemakers who do not add sulfites to their wines without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.

pre-thinking            
                                                     
Falsification question

In what scenario will people allergic to sulfites not be able to drink wines (that do not have sulfites added to them) without risking allergic reactions to them?
Given that     -> These sulfites include (but are not limited to) the ones that are added to wines as preservatives
                     -> there are several wines-makers who do not follow this practice of adding sulfites to their wines.
                     -> if people allergic to sulfites want to have wines, they can drink wines made by these wine-makers
Thought Process

The author reasons that people who are allergic to certain sulfites should stay away from wines to which sulfites have been added as preservatives. If at all they want to drink wines, they can safely do so by having those wines that do not have added sulfites as preservatives.

Falsification condition

What if wines in which no sulfites have been added by the wine-maker still have some naturally occurring sulfites that are enough to cause allergic reactions?

In that case, people who are allergic to certain sulfites (not restricted to the ones added to the wines as preservatives) may drink wines with no added sulfites and still suffer an allergic reaction to the naturally occurring sulfites. That would break down my conclusion.

Assumption

The wines to which sulfites are not added as preservatives either do not contain any naturally occurring sulfites or contain it but not enough to cause allergic reactions.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This option simplified means: The wine-makers have been able to develop a way of copying the preservative effect of adding sulfites. This new way does not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.

They are not going to add any substance that is potentially allergenic. But this does not rule out the possibility of any substance that is already present in the wines and which could be potentially allergenic. Let’s say they have not been able to duplicate the whole effect. Then what? Maybe they will still use sulfites. Will my conclusion break down? No.

Hence, this is not the correct option.

B
Do we know which forms are safer and which are more potent? Does that even matter? We are talking about the risk posed to people allergenic to certain sulfites, including the ones added to the wines.

Hence, this is not the answer.

C
This option is beyond the scope of our argument. Here we are to analyze the risk posed by drinking wines that have sulfites added to them as preservatives. Whether other beverages are laced with sulfites or not is immaterial.

Hence, not the answer.

D
We are dealing with risk of sulfite related allergic reactions. Whether other substances commonly present in wine are also allergic or not we do not need to contend. In either case the risk posed by sulfites remains a threat.

Hence, not the answer.

E
This option says that sulfites that occur naturally in wines produced by these winemakers are not present in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.

It falls in line with our pre-thinking assumption.

Hence, this is the correct option.
_________________

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 is an assumption on which the argument depends?


Explanation:
--------------------
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. ---> Not sufficient. Why?

It's clear from the option that they are not adding sulfites; 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.) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions. ---> This does not say anything about wine produced by wine makers who do not add sulfites. Discard this too.


C.) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. ---> Irrelevant. Moreover, use of extreme word only.


D.) 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. --->

To test if a statement is an assumption required for an argument, 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.) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. ---> 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 discarded this option.

For a moment, even if we assume it to be correct, it's still not as strong as option D.
--------------------

My choice is option D. Hope that helps.

This was a really good question reply2spg! I found option A really tough to reason. +1 to you.


Regards,
Technext

The assumption type is logic gap. An assumption is the hidden premise. i.e. an assumption is what is absolutely necessary for the conclusion to be true. Without the assumption, the argument dies.

So what do the premises say here? note the underlined key words.
PRemise 1: May people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulphites. which include those that are added as preservatives in wines.
Premise 2: some winemakers do NOT add them.
Conclusion: Hence, people who are allergic to sulphites can drink these wines without risking a reaction.

Where is the hole in the argument?
It jumps from no sulphites added = no sulphites present.
What does this imply?
That apart from adding sulphite preservatives, nothing else is a source of sulphites in wine.
Choice E correctly describes this.
Note that the choice E is a narrower version of the actual assumption here. However, an assumption is necessary but not sufficient for the conclusion to hold. Here, it might be possible that some other compound reacts in wine and forms the sulphites. In this case, the conclusion will not hold. However, the choice E is necessary to be true for the conclusion to hold. There are many assumptions on the GMAT that would be a narrower version of the actual assumption set.

OG 12 says OA is E....Drinking wine to which no sulfi tes have been added will not prevent exposure to sulfi tes if, for instance, sulfi tes occur naturally in
wines. In particular, if the wines that do not have sulfi tes added have sulfi tes present naturally in quantities suffi cient to produce an allergic reaction, drinking these wines will not prevent an allergic reaction. Th e argument therefore depends on assuming that this is not the case. Source og 12.

A good one and really touch to prethink.

Answer E

Premise1 :- Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives.

Premise2 :- there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce.

Conclusion :- 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.

Here it is very important to pay attentions to the bolded words. These words indicate that conclusion is limited for a small subset of people who are allergic to sulfites and who would like to drinks wine without risking allergic reaction ONLY to sulfites.

Here we can infer that we need not assume anything about 1) people who can allergic to sulfites by means other than wine 2) people who can allergic to any other substance present in wine

Now Let's Analyze the Answer Choice.

A) INCORRECT :- Very attractive shell game answer. But it is important to note that we are not concerned about allergic reactions of any other substances/preservatives in wine since the conclusion clearly states that without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites. So this choice talks about the 2nd group of people cited above.

B) INCORRECT :- we are discussing about the sulfites as a whole. So the reasoning such as Type A sulfite create allergic reactions and type 2 not is irrelevant here.

C) INCORRECT :- This choice discussed about 1st group of people cited above - who can allergic to sulfites by means other than wine

D) INCORRECT :- With change in words, this choice also talks about people cited above - who can allergic to sulfites by means other than wine

E) CORRECT :- Conclusion states that people can save from allergic reactions of sufites added in the wine by drinking the wine does no have sulfites added into it. But if the sulfites have already been present in those wines in natural form then the drinkers,who are allergic to sulfites, can have allergic reactions despite drinking such wines. SO we need to assume that the sulfites are not present in wines in natural form.

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. The method doesn't matter. This answer simply expands on a premise.

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. The question stem states that allergenic wine drinkers can consume the special type of wine without risk of allergic reaction. If answer E were not true, the conclusion would be undermined.

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 is an assumption on which the argument depends?

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.
Potential answer but choise E is better since other kind of allergiesmay be relevant to other people not just the people who are allergic to sulfites.
B. Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions.
(out of scope)
C. Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
(Out of scope )
D. Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
Potential answer but choise E is better in addressing the argument in question.
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.
Most appropriate choise and if we do a negation test on this assumption ,it passes with flying colors. since if naturally occuring sulfites were present in the wine then the person would not be able to drink it and thereby defeating the descision of the wine makers to not to add sulfites.

my answer is E
A) it is not all allergic people, it is only allergic ppl to sulfites (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)
B) out of scope (all form of sulfites ??? )
C) out of scope (irrelevant information not useful assumption for the conclusion)
D) if there are any other allergic substances this doesn't mean this necessary for the conclusion ( 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 )
E) if sulfites naturally exist in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction conclusion will not be valid

Premise: Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites,
alternative : drink wine that has no sulfites.
pre-thinking : sulfite does not get created in wine after some time.

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. --- other potentially allergenic substances are out of scope. we need to look into sulfite only.

(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction. --- we are looking into sulfite that are added to wine.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. --- i only love wine. Why care for coke as of now.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. --- again we are looking into sulfite allergies

(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. --- on the line of pre thinking. this should be the correct answer.

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.

- We are concerned over allergies because of sulfites. So other substances that might produce allergies is irrelevant.

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

-we are talking about those wine makers who do not add any sulfite. so forms of sulfites reasoning is out of scope.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.

- Clearly out. Does not affect the conclusion.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.

- I find this option similar to (A), and again we are concerned about allergies stemming from 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.

- If we negate (E), it says Sulfites are naturally present in wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines. It hurts the conculsion. Even if we are not adding any sulfites, wines have it naturally, so no point in adding or not adding sulfites. Poor sulfite allergic people cant drink wine as it contains sulfites naturally.
So IMO E.

Question Type: Assumption

Argument: People who are allergic to sulfites can consume wine that do not contain sulfite as an added preservative.

(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. - Out of focus. The option does not provide any relationship between sulfites and consumption.

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

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added. - Out of context.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction. - Same as A. Focus is on sulfites and not substances other than 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.

Answer: E

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?[/quote]

Conclusion: 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.


(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.

We are concerned about the wines in which sulfite is not added.

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

We are not concerned about type of sulfites.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.

We are not in comparing mode.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.

No question of another additives

(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.

Negate and see argument falls.
_________________

Wine with added sullfites = alergic reaction
Wine without added sulfites + assumption = no allergic reaction

Wine without added sulfites + without sullfite naturally presented = no 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.

Negated (E) - Sulfites are naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
If this is true, our conclusion falls apart. Hence this is the assumption.

Drinkers will drink the wine, which are not added sulfites to avoid allergic reaction. They do that only when sulfites are not a natural part of wine-producing raw materials.
The answer is E.

Can someone validate my thinking on D?

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.

P: People suffer allergic reactions to sulfites, including those in wine
P: But, there winemakers who add sulfites to none of their wines they make
C: People who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink such wines without risking reactions

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.

This seems to be an inference from passage more than anything else. It clearly follows that from the argument that sulfites are preservatives that cause reactions. However, if people can drink wines without sulfites that don’t cause allergie reactions, then surely the winemakers were able to retain the preservative effect somehow.

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

OK – but we aren’t in the business of comparing how likely a sulfite is to produce allergies. Let’s say they are all equally likely to do so…the point is the conclusion is about people drinking wines that DO NOT contain them.

(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.

No. The argument still works if we negate this.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.

Tricky trap choice. The problem with this choice is we would be saying that the author assumes that sulfites exist in the wine. So, it would be erroneous to go from assuming that there are sulfites in the wine to concluding that people who are allergic to sulfites can drink it without issue.

(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. The passage conclusion is that people can drink wines WITHOUT risking an allergic reaction. The author necessarily assumes that there is no other way by which people could get an allergic reaction from drinking wine that lacks ADDED sulfites. Wait a minute. What if there are existing, natural sulfites that could cause an allergic reaction? Then the conclusion fails.
_________________

Hi mikemcgarry

Could you please tell why option A is not necessary assumption?
If wines produced by new winemakers are not giving taste as actual due to absence of preservatives,will people drink these wines? I have a confusion regarding this