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.

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.

老实说，感觉D更正确一些。答案是E。

我还是觉得D阿。就是因为对其他的不过敏，所以缺少了硫化物的情况下，就真的不会过敏了

还是觉得E不对

E说的是naturally,强调是本身不含,正好排除了一个可能的原因,所以E对的

虽然D也可能迷惑,因为D也在排除它因,但是总体上说D是out of scope,跟题目谈论的逻辑无关,不需要这样的假设

people can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
  

题目中说的是人们可以喝酒而不用对Sulfites产生过敏反应。

至于你是不是对其他东西过敏，跟题目没有关系。

也就是说题目只讨论对Sulfits过敏的问题，而不是过敏的问题。

如果硫化物在酒中自然就有的话，即使厂家不添加，那么酒中还是有，如果这样的硫化物有一定的浓度，还是会造成过敏

这也就是D的问题，D说除了硫化物没有其他的东西能导致过敏

是的，但是前提是D认为硫化物的完全是由厂家负责的

但是看看文章的第一句：Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives.

文章说，硫化物中包括厂家添加的防腐剂，但是并没有说，防腐剂就是酒中所有的硫化物的来源

E is the answer

有道理额，现在想想真的应该是E。

谢谢牛们！