|
|
考研英语阅读所占分值高，比重大，是考生赢取高分必要攻克的一大题型。而要提高阅读能力，多练习多积累是必要途径。新东方在线小编汇总整合了一些列精选文章，希望考生勤加阅读，不断提升自己的阅读速度和理解能力。》》点击进入2015考研英语备考专题
2015年考研英语阅读精选：Tesco
IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free
trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that
Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made
by America's Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at
cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.
Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed
to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is
that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment
its markets as it sees fit: Levi's jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be
allowed to be expensive.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply
alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the
value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long
run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's
case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price
differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe--a service
performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to
real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's
jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores
approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food
sourcing, says the ruling risks "creating a Fortress Europe with a
vengeance".
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes
(Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The
question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to
protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do
this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose
licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to
the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its
distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price
Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share
to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium
prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away
and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi
Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand
again.
1. Gucci's success shows that _______.
[A]Gucci has successfully saved its own image.
[B] It has changed its fate with its own effort.
[C]Opening its own stores is the key to success.
[D] It should be the court's duty to save its image.
2. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?
[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.
[B]Only the Levi's maker can decide the prices of the jeans.
[C] The ruling has protected Levi's from price dumping.
[D] Levi's jeans should be sold at a high price .
3. The word "specious"(line 12, paragraph 2) in the context probably means
_______.
[A]responsible for oneself
[B] having too many doubts
[C] not as it seems to be
[D]raising misunderstanding
4. The author's attitude towards Levi's prospect seems to be _______.
[A] biased
[B] indifferent
[C] puzzling
[D] objective
5. According to the passage, the doomed fate of Levi's is caused by such
factors except that ________.
[A]the rivals are competitive
[B]it fails to command premium prices
[C]market forces have their own rules
[D]the court fails to give some help
参考答案：B B C D D
八月中下旬，暑期已经接近尾声。考生目前要关注2015年全国硕士研究生招生简章的发布以及2015年考研大纲发布，届时，新东方在线名师第一时间权威解析发布，请广大考生收藏关注！另有研究生专业目录、考研参考书等最新考研信息，帮助考生及时了解目标院校招生政策及信息。
mtpdC1jZW50ZXI7IHdoaXRlLXNwYWNlOiBub3JtYWw7IA==">新东方名师考研课程直播 购买进行中 |
|
发表于 2017-8-6 15:54:00