CAT 2023 Slot 2 · VARC · RC passage 4: Second-Hand Fashion and Sustainability

The full passage and all 4 questions (Q21–Q24) from CAT 2023 Slot 2, with answers and solutions.

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.”

Question 21 · RC Inference Questions

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

  1. A

    is an anti-consumerist attitude.

  2. B

    has created environmental problems.

  3. C

    is not cost-effective for retailers.

  4. D

    offers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices.

Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

Thrifting is promoted as the planet-friendly alternative to fast fashion. But the passage reports that 'older clothes shed more microfibres', which end up in rivers and seas and contribute to microfibre pollution. The supposedly green choice creates its own environmental problem – that is the irony.

Option 2 states this.

Option 1 (anti-consumerist) is not ironic; it is consistent with thrifting's aims.

Option 3 refers to the cost of recycling for luxury retailers, not to thrifting.

Option 4 (cheap luxury clothing) describes a feature, not an irony.

Shortcut: irony means the result contradicts the intention. Find what thrifting is meant to do (help the planet) and the option where it does the opposite.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Question 22 · RC Detail and Fact Based Questions

According to the author, companies like ThredUP have not caught on in the UK for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that:
  1. A
    luxury brands want to maintain their brand image.
  2. B
    luxury brands do not like their product to be devalued.
  3. C
    the British don’t buy second-hand clothing.
  4. D
    recycling is currently not financially attractive for luxury brands.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option C

The passage gives these reasons: luxury brands 'would rather not circulate their latest season stock... to be sold at a cheaper price' (options 1 and 2), and recycling is not yet cost-effective, so 'high-end retailers would rather put brand before sustainability' (option 4).

Option 3 – the British don't buy second-hand clothing – contradicts the passage. Britons are thrifting; London has many vintage shops 'from Bayswater to Brixton'. The passage says only that some people were taught to buy new.

Shortcut: watch for sweeping generalisations ('the British don't...') when the passage gives evidence of the opposite.

Hence, the answer is option 3.

Question 23 · Strengthen and Weaken Arguments

The central idea of the passage would be undermined if:
  1. A
    customers bought all their clothes online.
  2. B
    Primark and Boohoo recycled their clothes for vintage stores.
  3. C
    second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.
  4. D
    clothes were not thrown and burnt in landfills.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option C

The central idea is that second-hand shopping, though popular as a green choice, may not be effective, because older, worn clothes shed more microfibres; buyers are advised to choose 'high-quality items that shed less and last longer'.

Option 3 – second-hand stores sell only high-quality clothes – would remove the problem the passage raises, undermining its central concern.

Option 1 concerns online buying, which is not the issue.

Option 2 would add more second-hand stock but does nothing about microfibres.

Option 4 deals with landfill burning, only one part of the problem; the microfibre issue would remain.

Shortcut: to undermine a passage's central warning, look for an option that makes the warned-about problem disappear.

Hence, the answer is option 3.

Question 24 · RC Inference Questions

Based on the passage, we can infer that the opposite of fast fashion, ‘slow fashion’, would most likely refer to clothes that:
  1. A
    are sold by genuine vintage stores.
  2. B
    are of high quality and long lasting.
  3. C
    do not shed microfibres.
  4. D
    do not bleed toxins and dyes.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

Fast fashion means cheap clothes bought often and thrown away. The passage's recommended alternative is 'high-quality items that shed less and last longer', which combat both microfibre pollution and excess garments in landfills.

Option 2, clothes that are high quality and long lasting, is the natural meaning of 'slow fashion'.

Option 1 links slow fashion to vintage stores, but second-hand clothes can be low quality and shed more fibres.

Options 3 and 4 each name one environmental property; slow fashion is about durability and quality overall.

Shortcut: for 'the opposite of X' questions, find the passage's own recommended alternative to X.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.

Practice timed →