NinetynineCAT 2023 Slot 2 VARC RC Passage 1 Q1–Q4
A reading comprehension passage from the Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) section of CAT 2023 Slot 2, with 4 questions (RC · Science & Technology). Answers are CAT's official key.
The passage
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."
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 central idea of the passage would be undermined if:
- APrimark and Boohoo recycled their clothes for vintage stores.
- Bcustomers bought all their clothes online.
- Csecond-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.
- Dclothes were not thrown and burnt in landfills.
Answer: (C) second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes. RC · Science & Technology MCQ
Solution
- After setting out the landfill problem, the passage turns to its real point: thrifting may not be effective, because older, worn clothes shed more microfibres that end up in rivers and seas.
- That is why the author advises buying only high-quality items that shed less and last longer.
- If second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes, the worry that second-hand shopping is ineffective would vanish, so C undermines the central idea.
- D removes only one harm (burning in landfills). The microfibre argument about second-hand clothes would still stand.
Question 2
The act of "thrifting", as described in the passage, can be considered ironic because it:
- Ahas created environmental problems.
- Bis an anti-consumerist attitude.
- Cis not cost-effective for retailers.
- Doffers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices.
Answer: (A) has created environmental problems. RC · Science & Technology MCQ
Solution
- Thrifting is adopted to save the planet, yet the Patagonia study shows older clothes shed more microfibres, which pollute rivers and seas.
- A fix that creates its own environmental problem is ironic, so A.
- B, C and D describe no reversal of intent. Cost-effectiveness concerns luxury retailers, not thrifting.
Question 3
Based on the passage, we can infer that the opposite of fast fashion, 'slow fashion', would most likely refer to clothes that:
- Ado not shed microfibres.
- Bare of high quality and long lasting.
- Care sold by genuine vintage stores.
- Ddo not bleed toxins and dyes.
Answer: (B) are of high quality and long lasting. RC · Science & Technology MCQ
Solution
- The author's recommendation is to buy \"high-quality items that shed less and last longer\", which tackles both microfibre pollution and landfill waste.
- The opposite of disposable fast fashion is therefore clothing that is high quality and long lasting, B.
- A and D are absolute claims (no shedding, no toxins) that the passage never makes; C confuses vintage with sustainable.
Question 4
According to the author, companies like ThredUP have not caught on in the UK for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that:
- Arecycling is currently not financially attractive for luxury brands.
- Bluxury brands do not like their product to be devalued.
- Cthe British don't buy second-hand clothing.
- Dluxury brands want to maintain their brand image.
Answer: (C) the British don't buy second-hand clothing. RC · Science & Technology MCQ
Solution
- The last paragraph gives these reasons: luxury brands don't want their latest stock sold cheaply (B), recycling is not yet cost-effective (A), and high-end retailers put brand before sustainability (D).
- The passage never says the British don't buy second-hand. It says Brits are thrifting more and \"there will always be a market for consignment\"; only one generation is used to buying new.
- So C is not a reason given.