题目

阅读理解     Imagine being a business that regularly takes huge quantities of your own products worth millions of pounds and burns them up. Your stock literally goes up in smoke. It sounds crazy, but the practice is common for some of the world's biggest clothing manufacturers. They argue that it is the most cost-effective way of maintaining their brand's exclusivity (独特性).     The clothes that are burned are those that do not sell at a high enough price. Rather than watch them go on sale, the companies would set fire to them and regain a small amount of energy.     Nobody knows exactly how much unsold stock is burnt annually by those fashion houses, but burning clothes has various negative impacts on the environment. For example, burning clothes made from artificial fibers may release plastic microfibers into the atmosphere, which worsens global warming. A UK parliamentary committee report on sustainability and the fashion industry advises the government to ban the burning of unsold stock if it can be reused or recycled.     Actually, there are other approaches. What if those companies had a section tasked with taking back unsold clothes, redesigning them into new products, and shipping out the new products to the market once again?     There is also now an opportunity to focus on biodegradable (可生物降解的) fabrics. Clothes that break down faster might not have to be burned. They would also appeal to those who care about the environmental impact of their own wardrobes (衣柜).     Additionally, we have an over-production problem. According to the World Bank, while clothing sales have risen steadily since 2000, clothing utilization has fallen at roughly the same rate. For every extra T-shirt that is sold, it will be worn roughly half as much as it would have been 20 years ago. That means better forecasting market trends would in theory result in less waste.     Burning clothes won't happen simply through fashion firms. The scale of fashion production has to change. And it's important to recognize that these consumer-focused brands will only go where the market takes them. If protecting the environment really matters to the public, they have to make clear that they want more sustainable clothing in the first place. Without consumers demanding that, it won't change. （1） Paragraph Three mainly talks about_________. A . how important the UK parliamentary committee report is B . why fashion firms should end burning unsold stock C . why fashion firms burn unsold clothes in large numbers every year D . how artificial fabrics will contribute to global warming （2） The underlined expression "clothing utilization" in the sixth paragraph means______ A . how long clothing lasts B . how well clothing sells C . how often clothing is used D . how clothing is designed （3） According to the article, which of the following is NOT a better way of dealing with unsold clothes than burning them? A . Redesigning and making them into new clothes. B . Making consumers feel better about their purchases. C . Conducting research on market demand before production. D . Making clothes out of environmentally-friendly materials. （4） What can we learn from the last paragraph? A . Consumers play a key role in stopping burning clothes. B . Burning clothes is a better option for every fashion firm. C . The secret that some fashion firms burn clothes is well kept. D . Today's clothes are better than those two decades ago. 答案： B C B A

查看本题答案和解析