Whenever you see an old film, even one made as little as ten years ago, you cannot help being struck by the appearance of the women taking part. Their hair-styles and make-up look dated; their skirts look either too long or too short; their general appearance is, in fact, slightly ludicrous. The men taking part in the film, on the other hand, are clearly recognizable. There is nothing about their appearance to suggest that they belong to an entirely different age.

　　This illusion is created by changing fashions. Over the year, the great majority of men have successfully resisted all attempts to make them change their style of dress. The same cannot be said for women. Each year a few so- called top designers in Paris or London lay down the law and women the whole world over rush to obey. The decrees of the designers are unpredictable and dictatorial. This year, they decide in their arbitrary fashion, skirts will be short and waists will be high; zips are in and buttons are out. Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one is even mildly surprised.

　　If women are mercilessly exploited year after year, they have only themselves to blame. Because they shudder at the thought of being seen in public in clothes that are out of fashion, they are annually black-mailed by the designers and the big stores. Clothes, which have been worn, only a few times have to be discarded because of the dictates of fashion. When you come to think of it, only a women is capable of standing in front of a wardrobe packed full of clothes and announcing sadly that she has nothing to wear.

　　Changing fashions are nothing more than the deliberate creation of waste. Many women squander vast sums of money each year to replace clothes that have hardly been worn. Women, who cannot afford to discard clothing in this way, waste hours of their time altering the dresses they have. Hem-limes are taken up or let down; waist-lines are taken in or let out; neck-lines are lowered or raised, and so on.

　　No one can claim that the fashion industry contributes anything really important to society. Fashion designers are rarely concerned with vital things like warmth, comfort and durability. They are only interested in outward appearance and they take advantage of the fact that women will put up with any amount of discomfort, providing they look right. There can hardly be a man who hasnt at some time in his life smiled at the sight of a woman shivering in a flimsy dress on a wintry day, or delicately picking her way through deep snow in dainty shoes.

　　When comparing men and women in the matter of fashion, the conclusions to be drawn are obvious. Do the constantly changing fashions of womens clothes, one wonders, reflect basic qualities of fickleness and instability? Men are too sensible to let themselves be bullied by fashion designers. Do their unchanging styles of dress reflect basic qualities of stability and reliability? That is for you to decide.

　　1. The main idea of this passage is

　　[A]. New fashions in clothes reflect the qualities of women.

　　[B]. New fashions in clothing are created solely for commercial exploitation of women.

　　[C]. The top designers seem to have the right to creating new fashion.

　　[D]. Men have the basic quality of reliability.

　　2. Why do the general appearance of actresses look ludicrous?

　　[A]. Because they want their appearance in the fashion.

　　[B]. Because the top designers want them to follow the fashion.

　　[C]. Because the top designers want them to make fashion.

　　[D]. Because the top designers want them to lead the fashion.

　　3. Why are women mercilessly exploited by the fashion designers?

　　[A]. They love new fashion. [B]. They love new clothes.

　　[C]. They want to look beautiful. [D]. They are too vain.

　　4. What are fashion designers interested in?

　　[A]. Outward appearance. [B]. Comfort.

　　[C]. Beauty. [D]. Durability.

　　Vocabulary

　　1. dated 過時的

　　2. decree 法令，命令

　　3. dictatorial 專制的，惟我獨尊的

　　4. arbitrary 任意的，專橫的

　　5. take exception 生氣，發怒

　　6. take exception to 對提出異議

　　7. dictates 意旨，命令，指令

　　8. squander 浪費

　　9. hem 褶邊，折縫，鑲邊

　　10. flimsy 薄的，沒有價值的

　　11. dainty 雅致的，講究的

　　12. fickle 易變的，輕浮的

　　13. bully 欺負

　　14. lay down the law (制定法律)這里指服裝設計師發號施令或定出條條框框

　　難句譯注

　　1. lay down the law 制定法律。這里指：發號施令或定出條條框框。

　　2. Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one is even mildly surprised.

　　[參考譯文] 第二年，條例又反過來，人們遠沒有生氣，甚至連稍稍的驚訝都沒有。

　　寫作方法和文章大意

　　文章論述婦女時裝更新問題，采用因果，對比手法。先從男女演員服裝的差異，談到服裝設計師年年變更樣式，風格。婦女不顧一切的追隨，甘愿被剝削的根源。而男人卻能淡然處之。

　　答案祥解

　　1. B. 創制新時裝就是對婦女的商業性剝削。答案遍及全文。也有幾段突出描述。如：第二段第四句每年，巴黎，倫敦的一些所謂高級設計師定出條條框框，全世界婦女競相服從。設計師的條令難以預測，說一不二。第三段要說婦女年年被無情的剝削之事，只能怪她們自己。由于她們一想起在公共場所穿著過失的衣服就會發抖，所以他們每年都被設計師和大商店訛詐(勒索)第四段：許多婦女(每年)浪費大筆錢財來置換她們從未穿過的服裝，時裝變化就是故意創造浪費。

　　A. 時裝反映婦女的秉性。這是在最后一段結論中提及，不是中心思想。 D. 男人具有可靠性的基本素質。不對。 C. 高級設計師似乎有權創造新款式。這是作者在批評設計者。

　　2. D. 因為高級設計師請她們領導時裝潮流。只是常識，設計師新穎服裝的推出，首先是讓演員試裝等于時裝模特的效用，掀起可以領導時裝的新潮流。

　　A. 他們要打扮入時，這只是演員的一方面。 B. 隨大流。 C. 作作樣子。 都是不對的。

　　3. D. 他們太好虛榮。 這在文章的好幾段內都提到。如第一題中的第二段，三段，四段的參考譯文。如第三段后半部分只穿了幾次的衣服就因為時尚的命令而棄之一邊。當你想到只有婦女能站在堆滿衣服的衣柜前，悲哀的訴說她沒有衣服穿。第四段的后半段花不起大筆錢財買衣服的婦女會花上好幾個小時把他們已有的衣服換來換去。第五段后半部分男人一生中經常可以看到大冬天婦女顫抖在薄薄的衣衫中，或者穿著精致的鞋在雪地上選路走，這都令他們發笑。最后一段結論，畫龍點睛的以問點明經常不斷的換時裝。人們不禁要問，這是不是反映了婦女輕浮和易變的基本素質(秉性)?

　　A. 她們愛新時尚; B. 她們愛新衣服; C. 她們想瞧著美。這三項只是虛榮的部分組成。

　　4. A. 外觀。答案在第五段沒有人認為時裝工業為社會作過真正的貢獻。時裝設計師很少關心保暖，舒服和耐穿這類緊要的事，他們只是對外觀感性趣，他們利用了婦女的心理：只要看著美，她們能忍受一切(痛苦)不舒服。

　　B. 舒適。 C. 美，時裝不一定美。D. 耐穿。

　　Whenever you see an old film, even one made as little as ten years ago, you cannot help being struck by the appearance of the women taking part. Their hair-styles and make-up look dated; their skirts look either too long or too short; their general appearance is, in fact, slightly ludicrous. The men taking part in the film, on the other hand, are clearly recognizable. There is nothing about their appearance to suggest that they belong to an entirely different age.

　　This illusion is created by changing fashions. Over the year, the great majority of men have successfully resisted all attempts to make them change their style of dress. The same cannot be said for women. Each year a few so- called top designers in Paris or London lay down the law and women the whole world over rush to obey. The decrees of the designers are unpredictable and dictatorial. This year, they decide in their arbitrary fashion, skirts will be short and waists will be high; zips are in and buttons are out. Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one is even mildly surprised.

　　If women are mercilessly exploited year after year, they have only themselves to blame. Because they shudder at the thought of being seen in public in clothes that are out of fashion, they are annually black-mailed by the designers and the big stores. Clothes, which have been worn, only a few times have to be discarded because of the dictates of fashion. When you come to think of it, only a women is capable of standing in front of a wardrobe packed full of clothes and announcing sadly that she has nothing to wear.

　　Changing fashions are nothing more than the deliberate creation of waste. Many women squander vast sums of money each year to replace clothes that have hardly been worn. Women, who cannot afford to discard clothing in this way, waste hours of their time altering the dresses they have. Hem-limes are taken up or let down; waist-lines are taken in or let out; neck-lines are lowered or raised, and so on.

　　No one can claim that the fashion industry contributes anything really important to society. Fashion designers are rarely concerned with vital things like warmth, comfort and durability. They are only interested in outward appearance and they take advantage of the fact that women will put up with any amount of discomfort, providing they look right. There can hardly be a man who hasnt at some time in his life smiled at the sight of a woman shivering in a flimsy dress on a wintry day, or delicately picking her way through deep snow in dainty shoes.

　　When comparing men and women in the matter of fashion, the conclusions to be drawn are obvious. Do the constantly changing fashions of womens clothes, one wonders, reflect basic qualities of fickleness and instability? Men are too sensible to let themselves be bullied by fashion designers. Do their unchanging styles of dress reflect basic qualities of stability and reliability? That is for you to decide.

　　1. The main idea of this passage is

　　[A]. New fashions in clothes reflect the qualities of women.

　　[B]. New fashions in clothing are created solely for commercial exploitation of women.

　　[C]. The top designers seem to have the right to creating new fashion.

　　[D]. Men have the basic quality of reliability.

　　2. Why do the general appearance of actresses look ludicrous?

　　[A]. Because they want their appearance in the fashion.

　　[B]. Because the top designers want them to follow the fashion.

　　[C]. Because the top designers want them to make fashion.

　　[D]. Because the top designers want them to lead the fashion.

　　3. Why are women mercilessly exploited by the fashion designers?

　　[A]. They love new fashion. [B]. They love new clothes.

　　[C]. They want to look beautiful. [D]. They are too vain.

　　4. What are fashion designers interested in?

　　[A]. Outward appearance. [B]. Comfort.

　　[C]. Beauty. [D]. Durability.

　　Vocabulary

　　1. dated 過時的

　　2. decree 法令，命令

　　3. dictatorial 專制的，惟我獨尊的

　　4. arbitrary 任意的，專橫的

　　5. take exception 生氣，發怒

　　6. take exception to 對提出異議

　　7. dictates 意旨，命令，指令

　　8. squander 浪費

　　9. hem 褶邊，折縫，鑲邊

　　10. flimsy 薄的，沒有價值的

　　11. dainty 雅致的，講究的

　　12. fickle 易變的，輕浮的

　　13. bully 欺負

　　14. lay down the law (制定法律)這里指服裝設計師發號施令或定出條條框框

　　難句譯注

　　1. lay down the law 制定法律。這里指：發號施令或定出條條框框。

　　2. Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one is even mildly surprised.

　　[參考譯文] 第二年，條例又反過來，人們遠沒有生氣，甚至連稍稍的驚訝都沒有。

　　寫作方法和文章大意

　　文章論述婦女時裝更新問題，采用因果，對比手法。先從男女演員服裝的差異，談到服裝設計師年年變更樣式，風格。婦女不顧一切的追隨，甘愿被剝削的根源。而男人卻能淡然處之。

　　答案祥解

　　1. B. 創制新時裝就是對婦女的商業性剝削。答案遍及全文。也有幾段突出描述。如：第二段第四句每年，巴黎，倫敦的一些所謂高級設計師定出條條框框，全世界婦女競相服從。設計師的條令難以預測，說一不二。第三段要說婦女年年被無情的剝削之事，只能怪她們自己。由于她們一想起在公共場所穿著過失的衣服就會發抖，所以他們每年都被設計師和大商店訛詐(勒索)第四段：許多婦女(每年)浪費大筆錢財來置換她們從未穿過的服裝，時裝變化就是故意創造浪費。

　　A. 時裝反映婦女的秉性。這是在最后一段結論中提及，不是中心思想。 D. 男人具有可靠性的基本素質。不對。 C. 高級設計師似乎有權創造新款式。這是作者在批評設計者。

　　2. D. 因為高級設計師請她們領導時裝潮流。只是常識，設計師新穎服裝的推出，首先是讓演員試裝等于時裝模特的效用，掀起可以領導時裝的新潮流。

　　A. 他們要打扮入時，這只是演員的一方面。 B. 隨大流。 C. 作作樣子。 都是不對的。

　　3. D. 他們太好虛榮。 這在文章的好幾段內都提到。如第一題中的第二段，三段，四段的參考譯文。如第三段后半部分只穿了幾次的衣服就因為時尚的命令而棄之一邊。當你想到只有婦女能站在堆滿衣服的衣柜前，悲哀的訴說她沒有衣服穿。第四段的后半段花不起大筆錢財買衣服的婦女會花上好幾個小時把他們已有的衣服換來換去。第五段后半部分男人一生中經常可以看到大冬天婦女顫抖在薄薄的衣衫中，或者穿著精致的鞋在雪地上選路走，這都令他們發笑。最后一段結論，畫龍點睛的以問點明經常不斷的換時裝。人們不禁要問，這是不是反映了婦女輕浮和易變的基本素質(秉性)?

　　A. 她們愛新時尚; B. 她們愛新衣服; C. 她們想瞧著美。這三項只是虛榮的部分組成。

　　4. A. 外觀。答案在第五段沒有人認為時裝工業為社會作過真正的貢獻。時裝設計師很少關心保暖，舒服和耐穿這類緊要的事，他們只是對外觀感性趣，他們利用了婦女的心理：只要看著美，她們能忍受一切(痛苦)不舒服。

　　B. 舒適。 C. 美，時裝不一定美。D. 耐穿。