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.
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:
The options given are:
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.
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.
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.
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."
When $10^{100}$ is divided by 7, the remainder is ?