Text 1

　　In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn’t affect her. Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant’s sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment。

　　This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn’t be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline’s three-year indictment of “fast fashion”. In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely. Quckier turnrounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit. Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposal—— meant to last only a wash or two, although they don’t advertise that——and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks. By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking all industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace。

　　The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers. For H&M to offer a 5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amount of harmful chemicals。

　　Overdressed is the fashion world’s answer to consumer activist bestsellers like Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues, Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year——about 64 items per person——and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste。

　　Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named SKB, who, since 2008 has make all of her own clothes——and beautifully. But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example, can’t be knocked off。

　　Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environment——including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection Line——Cline believes lasting-change can only be effected by the customer. She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy. Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can’t afford to it。

　　21. Priestly criticizes her assistant for her

　　[A] poor bargaining skill。

　　[B] insensitivity to fashion。

　　[C] obsession with high fashion。

　　[D]lack of imagination。

　　22. According to Cline, mass-maket labels urge consumers to

　　[A] combat unnecessary waste。

　　[B] shut out the feverish fashion world。

　　[C] resist the influence of advertisements。

　　[D] shop for their garments more frequently。

　　23. The word “indictment” (Line 3, Para.2) is closest in meaning to

　　[A] accusation。

　　[B] enthusiasm。

　　[C] indifference。

　　[D] tolerance。

　　24. Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?

　　[A] Vanity has more often been found in idealists。

　　[B] The fast-fashion industry ignores sustainability。

　　[C] People are more interested in unaffordable garments。

　　[D] Pricing is vital to environment-friendly purchasing。

　　25. What is the subject of the text?

　　[A] Satire on an extravagant lifestyle。

　　[B] Challenge to a high-fashion myth。

　　[C] Criticism of the fast-fashion industry。

　　[D] Exposure of a mass-market secret。

　　答案：BDCCD

Text 2

　　An old saw has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy。

　　In the past couple of weeks three deals and a quarrel have illustrated the value to advertisers (and their suppliers of software) of such fine-grained information. Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?

　　In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Commission proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed. Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT; Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests。

　　On May 31st Microsoft set off the row. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with Windows 8, a new incarnation of the software firm's operating system, would have DNT as a default。

　　Advertisers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, one of the groups in the DAA, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They'll get less meaningful, less targeted ads。”

　　It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies (including Twitter) have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft's default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway。

上一页123456789下一页