CAT 2023 Slot 2VARC Question 15

Mixed PracticeEasy
Passage / Data

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

Answer & solution

  • A

    offers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices.

  • has created environmental problems.

  • C

    is an anti-consumerist attitude.

  • D

    is not cost-effective for retailers.

Solution

Easy

Find the irony: thrifting is done to help the planet, yet the passage reveals it backfires. Locate the twist — paragraph 4 shows the unintended downside of buying used clothes.

A

"Offers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices." A feature of resale, but cheap luxury isn't ironic and isn't tied to thrifting's eco-purpose. Wrong.

B

"Has created environmental problems." Exactly the irony: people thrift to save the planet, but older clothes "shed more microfibres," polluting rivers and oceans after a single wash. The green act causes harm. Correct.

C

"Is an anti-consumerist attitude." This describes thrifting's intent, not a contradiction — there is nothing ironic about it. Wrong.

D

"Is not cost-effective for retailers." Cost-effectiveness concerns luxury brands and recycling (last paragraph), not the irony of thrifting itself. Wrong.

Option B — an act meant to protect the environment ends up creating microfibre pollution: that is the irony.

CAT 2023 Slot 2 VARC Q15: The act of “thrifting”, as described in the passage, can be considered ironic because it: — Solution | TheCATExam