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.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: