单选题 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.

单选题 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.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】[解析] 事实细节根据题干定位到第一段，对应信息是“...should not be allowed...to sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.”意思是“只有事先经过牛仔裤生产商的同意才能打折销售。”但这并不能推出只有生产商才能决定价格，B项属于过度推理，所以为错误选项。该题针对第一段内容命题，属于事实细节信息考查类题目。由于本题题干属于事实细节题中的正误题，虽然该题命制于第一段，但是四个选项与原文内容的比对并不容易。需要根据每个选项中的关键词到第一段进行定位。应对第一段的整体内容进行先理解，再定位。第一段第一句说到“It was a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul.”故A选项说法正确，排除。第一段倒数第二句说道：“the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping.”故C选项说法正确，排除。根据第一段最后一句：“Levi's jeans，just like Gucci handbags，must be allowed to be expensive．”D选项也正确，排除。

单选题 The word "specious" (line 4, 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

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】[解析] 词义推测第二段开头提出了李维斯公司(Levi's)对乐购(Tesco)的指责，后又提出了乐购的反驳意见，前后两者之间的观点应该是相反的。从而可猜出该词的含义，C项正确。该题针对第二段命题，属于词汇含义的推测。这种题大多是根据该词所在的语境进行推测。第二段开头提出了李维斯公司(Levi's)对乐购(Tesco)的指责，后又提出了乐购的反驳意见，其大意是Levi's没有理解乐购的做法。从而可以推出specious的含义。 A、B、D项均不能从文中推出，不符合文意，故排除。

单选题 Gucci's success shows that ______.

A. it has changed its fate with its own effort
B. Gucci has successfully saved its own image
C. opening its own stores is the key to success
D. it should be the court's duty to save its image

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】[解析] 推理判断根据题干内容定位到第三段，文中提到问题的实质是“whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. ”后又以古奇(Gucci)“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.”为例，说明它的成功并不是诉诸法庭，而是通过自身的努力和尝试。故A选项正确，同时排除D项。该题针对第三段的内容命题，属于推理判断题。根据题干内容定位到第三段，要对文中描述Gucci的成功案例进行概括，从而可以确定Gucci的成功是由于自身的努力。 B项属于表面推理，故排除。倒数第二句提到开自己的店铺只是古奇改变自己命运的方式之一，并没有提到这种方式是关键，C项属于过度推理，故排除。

单选题 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

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】[解析] 事实细节根据题干内容对应到原文最后一段。根据最后一段的内容：“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. ”D项的内容并不是造成李维斯暗淡前景的因素，符合题意。该题根据题干可定位至最后一段，属于事实细节信息考查类题目。由于本题题干属于事实细节题中的正误题，虽然该题命制于最后一段，但是四个选项与原文内容的比对并不容易。需要根据每个选项中的关键词到该段进行定位。应对第该段的整体内容进行先理解，再定位。选项A、B、C都是最后一段中提到的造成李维斯前景黯淡的因素之一，不符合题意，故排除。

单选题 The author's attitude towards Levi's prospect seems to be ______.

A. biased
B. indifferent
C. puzzling
D. objective

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】[解析] 观点态度文章在第四段对李维斯(Levi's)的前景做出了评价和分析。我们可以看出作者在论述客观事实，并没有明确表示褒贬，因此D项正确，同时排除A选项。该题属于观点态度题，需要从文中对李维斯前景的评述推断作者的态度。另外，针对本类题目，情感偏激的态度词一般不是正确选项，所以可先排除A、B项。通过全文的理解，尤其是最后一段评述性的语言可以看出作者是一种客观的评论，而且对李维斯的前景很确定，无法推断出“迷惑的”态度。 B选项，如果作者对李维斯前景的态度漠不关心，那么就不会用最后一段来评价李维斯的前景了。从第四段中Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. 和But no court can help to make it a great brand again．等语句我们可以看出，作者的态度是很客观清晰的，并不是迷惑的，C选项排除。