Comprehension
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
The Second Hand September campaign, led by Oxfam . . . seeks to encourage shopping at local organisations and charities as alternatives to fast fashion brands such as Primark and Boohoo in the name of saving our planet. As innocent as mindless scrolling through online shops may seem, such consumers are unintentionally—or perhaps even knowingly—contributing to an industry that uses more energy than aviation. . . .
Brits buy more garments than any other country in Europe, so it comes as no shock that many of those clothes end up in UK landfills each year: 300,000 tonnes of them, to be exact. This waste of clothing is destructive to our planet, releasing greenhouse gasses as clothes are burnt as well as bleeding toxins and dyes into the surrounding soil and water. As ecologist Chelsea Rochman bluntly put it, “The mismanagement of our waste has even come back to haunt us on our dinner plate.”
It’s not surprising, then, that people are scrambling for a solution, the most common of which is second-hand shopping. Retailers selling consigned clothing are currently expanding at a rapid rate . . . If everyone bought just one used item in a year, it would save 449 million lbs of waste, equivalent to the weight of 1 million Polar bears. “Thrifting” has increasingly become a trendy practice. London is home to many second-hand, or more commonly coined ‘vintage’, shops across the city from Bayswater to Brixton.
So you’re cool and you care about the planet; you’ve killed two birds with one stone. But do people simply purchase a second-hand item, flash it on Instagram with #vintage and call it a day without considering whether what they are doing is actually effective?
According to a study commissioned by Patagonia, for instance, older clothes shed more microfibres. These can end up in our rivers and seas after just one wash due to the worn material, thus contributing to microfibre pollution. To break it down, the amount of microfibres released by laundering 100,000 fleece jackets is equivalent to as many as 11,900 plastic grocery bags, and up to 40 per cent of that ends up in our oceans. . . . So where does this leave second-hand consumers? [They would be well advised to buy] high-quality items that shed less and last longer [as this] combats both microfibre pollution and excess garments ending up in landfills. . . .
Luxury brands would rather not circulate their latest season stock around the globe to be sold at a cheaper price, which is why companies like ThredUP, a US fashion resale marketplace, have not yet caught on in the UK. There will always be a market for consignment but there is also a whole generation of people who have been taught that only buying new products is the norm; second-hand luxury goods are not in their psyche. Ben Whitaker, director at Liquidation Firm B-Stock, told Prospect that unless recycling becomes cost-effective and filters into mass production, with the right technology to partner it, “high-end retailers would rather put brand before sustainability.”
Question: 1

The act of “thrifting”, as described in the passage, can be considered ironic because it:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • is an anti-consumerist attitude.
  • has created environmental problems.
  • is not cost-effective for retailers.
  • offers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The irony of "thrifting" as described in the passage lies in its unintended negative environmental impact. The passage outlines the Second Hand September campaign promoting second-hand shopping as eco-friendly, contrasting it with fast fashion's energy usage exceeding that of aviation.

Although thrifting aims to reduce garment waste and its harmful ecological effects, it inadvertently introduces environmental issues through microfibres shed by aged clothing, contaminating waterways. 

Thus, the irony resides in this practice of presumed sustainability contributing to ecological harm, aligning with the choice: has created environmental problems.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

According to the author, companies like ThredUP have not caught on in the UK for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • luxury brands want to maintain their brand image.
  • luxury brands do not like their product to be devalued
  • the British don’t buy second-hand clothing.
  • recycling is currently not financially attractive for luxury brands
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

To solve the question, we need to identify the reason why companies like ThredUP have not caught on in the UK, excluding one incorrect option provided. The passage provides insights into consumer behavior and business strategies related to second-hand clothing, particularly focused on the UK market. 

The possible reasons mentioned in the passage are:

  • Luxury brands prefer not to circulate their latest stock globally to avoid selling at cheaper prices (related to maintaining brand image).
  • High-end retailers prioritize brand image over sustainability unless recycling becomes cost-effective (indicating luxury brands’ reluctance to devalue their products).
  • A generational norm of consuming new products rather than second-hand items is mentioned, but it does not specifically state that the British don’t buy second-hand clothing.
  • Recycling needs to become financially attractive with compatible technology for luxury brands to consider its benefits.

The options given are:

  1. Luxury brands want to maintain their brand image.
  2. Luxury brands do not like their product to be devalued.
  3. The British don’t buy second-hand clothing.
  4. Recycling is currently not financially attractive for luxury brands.

Comparing these points with the passage, the statement that "the British don’t buy second-hand clothing" is not supported. The passage discusses the preference for new items and the increasing trend of second-hand shopping, indicating that the British do buy second-hand clothing.

Thus, the correct answer is: the British don’t buy second-hand clothing.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The central idea of the passage would be undermined if:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • customers bought all their clothes online.
  • Primark and Boohoo recycled their clothes for vintage stores
  • second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.
  • clothes were not thrown and burnt in landfills.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The passage primarily advocates for sustainable shopping practices, particularly second-hand shopping, as a solution to mitigate the adverse environmental impact of the fashion industry. Additionally, it underscores the importance of consumers being conscientious about the environmental consequences of their clothing choices, advocating for the selection of durable items that minimize microfiber shedding.

While emphasizing the potential environmental downside of second-hand clothing due to microfiber pollution, the passage suggests that this issue could be mitigated if second-hand clothes were consistently of higher quality. By purchasing high-quality items that shed fewer fibers and last longer, consumers can address both microfiber pollution and the accumulation of excess garments in landfills. Therefore, Option C is correct

Option A pertains more to the purchasing process rather than the characteristics of the clothing, thus it does not necessarily contradict the central idea of the passage.
Option B could potentially align with the sustainability objective and reinforce the central idea, thus it doesn't inherently undermine it.
Option D aligns with the central idea by advocating for reduced environmental harm through sustainable shopping practices.

So, the correct option is (C): second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

Based on the passage, we can infer that the opposite of fast fashion, ‘slow fashion’, would most likely refer to clothes that:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • are sold by genuine vintage stores.
  • are of high quality and long lasting.
  • do not shed micro fibres.
  • do not bleed toxins and dyes.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Option B is the correct option because the passage underscores the environmental concerns linked with fast fashion, notably the wasteful disposal of garments in landfills. Contrary to the disposable and rapid turnover nature of fast fashion, a more sustainable and enduring approach is advocated, which corresponds with the concept of "slow fashion." 

The passage implies that purchasing durable, high-quality items is a strategy to address the adverse environmental effects of the fashion industry. Consequently, 'slow fashion' can be inferred to denote clothing characterized by superior quality and longevity, advocating for a more sustainable and environmentally conscious approach to fashion consumption.

So, the correct option is (B): are of high quality and long lasting.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions