The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes . 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 Levis 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.

　　注(1)：本文选自Economist; 11/24/2001, Vol. 361 Issue 8249, p58, 1/2p

　　注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象2001年真题text 5(其中因2001年真题text 5只有4个题目，所以本文第5题模仿参照对象为1999年 Text 1的第4题。)

　　1. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?

　　Consumers and free traders were very angry.

　　Only the Levis maker can decide the prices of the jeans.

【考研英语时文阅读：TROUSER SUIT】相关文章：

★ 三大境界破解12月大学英语六级的阅读理解

★ 英语六级考试标准的阅读２

★ 大学英语四级100条阅读难句-sentence 13

★ 2013年英语四六级外刊阅读：TED的绝妙创意

★ 英语六级考试标准的阅读15

★ 英语四级阅读理解长难句练习（七十三）

★ 英语六级考试标准的阅读24

★ 2010年6月英语六级考试的标准阅读第27篇

★ 2015年6月英语四级阅读3招攻略

★ 轻松备考英语六级阅读需要破解的五个大问题