CAT 2023 Question Paper | VARC Slot 2

The only way to master VARC during your CAT Preparation is by practicing actual CAT question paper. Practice RCs with detailed video and text solutions from Previous CAT Question Papers.

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 1 : The central idea of the passage would be undermined if:

Explanatory Answer

The passage states that though second-hand shopping can help reduce pollution due to clothing ending up in landfills, such purchases are actually effective in saving the planet only in the case of high-quality second hand clothes, as low-quality older clothes cause microfibre pollution.

If second-hand clothes only sold high-quality clothes, then the central idea of the passage, that not all second-hand clothing purchases are effective is saving the planet, would be undermined. Option C is the right choice.

Primark and Boohoo are, according to the passage, 'fast fashion' brands. That is, they sell inexpensive, low-quality trendy clothing. If option A were true, then it would support (not undermine) the central idea that people should not simply purchase second-hand clothes without considering whether what they are doing is effective.

Even if options B or D were true, these options do not directly undermine the question of effectiveness of second-hand purchases in saving the planet. So, these options are ruled out.

The question is " The central idea of the passage would be undermined if: "

Hence, the answer is 'second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.'

Choice C is the correct answer.