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 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.

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

　　[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.

　　[B]Only the Levis maker can decide the prices of the jeans.

　　[C] The ruling has protected Levis from price dumping.

　　[D] Levis jeans should be sold at a high price .

　　2. Guccis success shows that _______.

　　[A]Gucci has successfully saved its own image.

【考研英语报刊文章阅读及剖析一】相关文章：

★ 英语四级阅读难句解析十三

★ 英语六级阅读四大难点解析

★ 英语四级阅读理解长难句练习（六十一）

★ 英语四级考试阅读习题及答案解析(5)

★ 大学英语六级阅读练习

★ 2015年6月英语四级阅读长难句分析(2)

★ 英语六级考试标准的阅读18

★ 2015年6月英语四级阅读长难句分析(3)

★ 英语六级考试标准的阅读23

★ 英语四级阅读难句解析九