搜索
第1篇：TROUSERSUITTheEuropeanCourtsideswithLeviStraussinitsbattlewithTescoITWASarulingthathadconsumersseethingwithangerandmanyafreetradercryingfoul.OnNovember20ththeEuropeanCourtofJusticedecidedthatTesco,aBritishsupermarketchain,shouldnotbeallowedtoimportjeansmadebyAmerica'sLeviStraussfromoutsidetheEuropeanUnionandsellthematcut-ratepriceswithoutgettingpermissionfirstfromthejeansmaker.Ironically,therulingisbasedonanEUtrademarkdirectivethatwasdesignedtoprotectlocal,notAmerican,manufacturersfrompricedumping.Theideaisthatanybrand-owningfirmshouldbeallowedtopositionitsgoodsandsegmentitsmarketsasitseesfit:Levi'sjeans,justlikeGuccihandbags,mustbeallowedtobeexpensive.LeviStrausspersuadedthecourtthat,bysellingitsjeanscheaplyalongsidesoappowderandbananas,Tescowasdestroyingtheimageandsothevalueofitsbrands--whichcouldonlyleadtolessinnovationand,inthelongrun,wouldreduceconsumerchoice.ConsumergroupsandTescosaythatLevi'scaseisspecious.ThesupermarketarguesthatitwasjustarbitragingthepricedifferentialbetweenLevi'sjeanssoldinAmericaandEurope--aserviceperformedamilliontimesadayinfinancialmarkets,andonethathasledtorealbenefitsforconsumers.Tescohasbeensellingsome15,000pairsofLevi'sjeansaweek,forabouthalfthepricetheycommandinspecialiststoresapprovedbyLeviStrauss.ChristineCross,Tesco'sheadofglobalnon-foodsourcing,saystherulingriskscreatingaFortressEuropewithavengeance.Thedebatewillrageon,andhasimplicationswellbeyondcasualclothes(LeviStrausswasjoinedinitslawsuitbyZinoDavidoff,aperfumemaker).Thequestionatitsheartisnotwhetherbrandsneedtocontrolhowtheyaresoldtoprotecttheirimage,butwhetheritisthejobofthecourtstohelpthemdothis.Gucci,anItalianclotheslabelwhoseimagewasbeingdestroyedbylooselicensingandover-exposureindiscountstores,saveditselfnotbyresortingtothecourtsbutbyendingcontractswiththird-partysuppliers,controllingitsdistributionbetterandopeningitsownstores.Itisnowhardtofindcut-priceGuccianywhere.BrandexpertsarguethatLeviStrauss,whichhasbeenlosingmarketsharetohipperrivalssuchasDiesel,isnolongerstrongenoughtocommandpremiumprices.Lefttomarketforces,so-sobrandssuchasLevi'smightwellfadeawayandbereplacedbyfresherlabels.Withthecourtsprotectingitsprices,LeviStraussmayhangonforlonger.Butnocourtcanhelptomakeitagreatbrandagain.注（1）：本文选自Economist;11/24/2001,Vol.361Issue8249,p58,1/2p注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象2001年真题text5（其中因2001年真题text5只有4个题目，所以本文第5题模仿参照对象为1999年Text1的第4题。）1.WhichofthefollowingisnottrueaccordingtoParagraph1?[A]Consumersandfreetraderswereveryangry.[B]OnlytheLevi’smakercandecidethepricesofthejeans.[C]TherulinghasprotectedLevi’sfrompricedumping.[D]Levi’sjeansshouldbesoldatahighprice.2.Gucci’ssuccessshowsthat_______.[A]Guccihassuccessfullysaveditsownimage.[B]Ithaschangeditsfatewithitsowneffort.[C]Openingitsownstoresisthekeytosuccess.[D]Itshouldbethecourt’sdutytosaveitsimage.3.Theword“specious”(line12,paragraph2)inthecontextprobablymeans_______.[A]responsibleforoneself[B]havingtoomanydoubts[C]notasitseemstobe[D]raisingmisunderstanding4.Accordingtothepassage,thedoomedfateofLevi’siscausedbysuchfactorsexceptthat________.[A]therivalsarecompetitive[B]itfailstocommandpremiumprices[C]marketforceshavetheirownrules[D]thecourtfailstogivesomehelp5.Theauthor’sattitudetowardsLevi’sprospectseemstobe_______.[A]biased[B]indifferent[C]puzzling[D]objective答案：BBCDD篇章剖析本文的结构形式为提出问题----分析问题。在第一段首先提出问题,指出欧洲法庭对特易购超市做出的裁决。第二段指出当事方对同一事件的不同看法和解释。第三段指出争论的核心问题在于是否应该借助法庭达到一些商业目的，并以古奇（Gucci）为例说明答案为否定。第四段对利维（Levi’s）的前景做出了评价和分析。词汇注释adj.沸腾的,火热的seethingfouladj.下流的，粗俗的：segmentv.分割innovationn.改革,创新speciousadj.似是而非的;似乎正确的，但实际却是谬误的arbitragev.套汇,套利交易withavengeance猛烈地;极度地licensingn.注册登记discountn.折扣resortvi.求助,诉诸premiumn.额外费用,奖金,奖赏,保险费,(货币兑现的)贴水难句突破1.LeviStrausspersuadedthecourtthat,bysellingitsjeanscheaplyalongsidesoappowderandbananas,Tescowasdestroyingtheimageandsothevalueofitsbrands--whichcouldonlyleadtolessinnovationand,inthelongrun,wouldreduceconsumerchoice.主体句式：LeviStrausspersuadedthat…结构分析：that之后是一个宾语从句；by之后的句子做伴随状语来修饰宾语从句；宾语从句中which又引导了一个非限制性定语从句。句子译文：利维•斯特劳斯公司使法庭相信特易购把利维牛仔服与皂粉，香蕉等放在一起廉价销售这一做法使其形象受损，品牌价位也因此受到了影响，这势必会使产品缺乏新意，最终减少消费者的选择。题目分析1．答案为B，属事实细节题。原文对应信息是“…shouldnotbeallowed…tosellthematcut-ratepriceswithoutgettingpermissionfirstfromthejeansmaker.”意思是“只有事先经过牛仔裤生产商的同意才能打折销售。”是否只有生产商才能决定价格，我们不得而知。2．答案为B，属推理判断题。文中提到问题的实质是“whetheritisthejobofthecourtstohelpthemdothis.”后又以古奇(Gucci)“saveditselfnotbyresortingtothecourtsbutbyendingcontractswiththird-partysuppliers,controllingitsdistributionbetterandopeningitsownstores.Itisnowhardtofindcut-priceGuccianywhere.”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。3．答案为C，属猜词题。第二段开头提出了利维公司（Levi’s）对特易购（Tesco）的指责，后又提出了特易购的反驳意见，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。4．答案为D，属推理判断题。原文对应信息是最后一段。5．答案为D，属情感态度题。作者没有任何偏颇的阐述整个事件。参考译文法庭的裁决使消费者感到义愤填膺，很多自由贸易者也感到愤愤不平。11月20日，欧洲法庭对特易购(Tesco)这家英国连锁超市做出了判决，特易购不能通过欧盟之外的渠道进口利维•斯特劳斯公司生产的牛仔裤，并且没有事先经过牛仔制造商的同意，不能打折销售。具有讽刺意味的是，这项判决是根据欧盟商标法做出的，目的在于保护本地而非美国制造商免受价格倾销的纷扰。其观点是应该允许任何一家拥有自己品牌的公司给自己的产品定位，分属适合的市场，比如利维牛仔裤，它就应该象古奇(Gucci)牌手提包一样售价昂贵。利维•斯特劳斯公司使法庭相信特易购把利维牛仔裤与皂粉，香蕉等放在一起廉价销售这一做法使其形象受损，品牌价位也因此受到了影响，这势必会使产品缺乏新意，最终减少消费者的选择。消费者和特易购却认为利维公司貌似有理实则不然。特易购认