阅读理解
Only a year ago, the suit and tie seemed headed for extinction—along with other old-economy anomalies like profits, proven products and payment in cash. In the new economy, workers would wear whatever clothing best got their creative juices flowing, without unduly restricting freedom of movement while playing table football and engaging in other activities de rigueur in the modern cutting-edge working environment. This sartorial revolution started, inevitably, in Silicon Valley, but by last spring it had stormed even the most sober and traditional banks, consultancies and law firms of Manhattan and the City of London. One by one, they all went "business casual". Now, it turns out, the vision of an open-neck future was but a mirage. Suits are back. According to the Doneger Group, a "style consultancy", sales of suits and dress shirts bottomed in the third quarter of last year, and have since rebounded sharply. The evidence is clearest in New York, where many a suit has been rescued from the wardrobe, with chinos and polo-shirts relegated to the weekends. Only workers who never come face to face with customers or senior managers can still fearlessly wear jeans and T-shirts. Even America's congenitally casual west coast is going conservative. The new vogue is "dressy casual". At a minimum, The Economist has found, shirts are once more being tucked into trousers. New-economy trendsetters such as Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Larry Ellison have all been seen looking dapper. When Steve Case, boss of AOL, wore a tie at the announcement of his firm's purchase of Time Warner a year ago, it was interpreted as a gesture to reassure Time workers. With hindsight, it seems Mr. Case simply had a feel for fashion. George Bush, sure-footed in his first weeks in the White House, has banned jeans from the Oval Office and wears a suit almost everywhere except on the ranch. The time has surely come to replace the old "hemline theory" of economic cycles with a new theory of suits. Back in the 1920s, George Taylor, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, argued that hemlines on women's skirts were a useful indicator of economic activity. They moved higher in good times, because women could afford to wear, and show off, expensive silk stockings. In hard times, they moved lower, as modesty required that less expensively clad legs be covered. Now that women have more to think about than their stockings, the wearing of suits may be a more reliable guide to economic trends. In any case, many female executives have abandoned hemlines altogether in favor of trousers. The suit is the perfect clothes for hard economic times. It speaks of seriousness of purpose and self-discipline. It speaks of dullness, too, which is a welcome contrast with the anarchic creativity of the dotcoms. A suit saves time, because it requires no thought and still looks all right—a crucial competitive advantage in the labor market that men long enjoyed over womea How foolish it was to throw that away. Above all, the backlash against suits revealed a labor market so tight that workers had all the cards. Bosses hated seeing their staff slouch contemptuously in torn jeans and jumpers, but had to put up with it. Now, jobs are harder to come by, and involve more work and less play. The suit is back. Everywhere except The Economist, of course. Here, freedom of movement is religion.
单选题11.It can be inferred from Paragraph 1 that a year ago, _____.
单选题12.Why does the author mention the fact that shirts are once more being tucked into trousers?
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】因果细节题。根据题干中的shirts are once more being tucked into trousers可定位至第三段。第三段第一句是该段的主题句，该段的其他句子都是为了支持主题句。第二、三句就是为了说明人们的衣着从casual变得conservative了，也就是说，人们变得less casual了，因此C项为本题答案。
单选题13.Which of the following best illustrates the old theory of economic cycle?
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】事实细节题。题干中的the old theory of economic cycle指的就是第四段提到的“裙边理论”。根据该理论，经济困难时，女人穿的裙子会较长，为的是遮掩腿部廉价的穿着。D项中的the Great Depression指的是“经济大萧条”，结合“裙边理论”可以看出，D项是正确的推论。