Text2 Prettyin pink: adult women do not rememer being so obsessed with the colour, yet itis pervasive in our young girls’ lives. Tt is not that pink is intrinsicallybad, but it is such a tiny slice of the rainbow and, though it may celebrategirlhood in one way, it also repeatedly and firmly fuses girls’ identity toappearance. Then it presents that connection, even among two-year-olds, between girls as not only innocent but as evidence of innocence. Looking around, Idespaired at the singular lack of imagination about girls’ lives and interests. Girls’attraction to pink may seem unavoidable, somehow encoded in their DNA, butaccording to Jo Paoletti, an associate professor of American Studies, it isnot. Children were not colour-coded at all until the early 20th century: in theera before domestic washing machines all babies wore white as a practicalmatter, since the only way of getting clothes clean was to boil them. What’smore, both boys and girls wore what were thought of as gender-neutraldresses.When nursery colours were introduced, pink was actually considered themore masculine colour, a pastel version of red, which was associated withstrength. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy andfaithfulness, symbolised femininity. It was not until the mid-1980s, whenamplifying age and sex differences became a dominant children’s marketingstrategy, that pink fully came into its own, when it began to seem inherentlyattractive to girls, part of what defined them as female, at least for thefirst few critical years. I hadnot realised how profoundly marketing trends dictated our perception of what isnatural to kins, including our core beliefs about their psychologicaldevelopment. Take the toddler. I assumed that phase was something expertsdeveloped after years of research into children’s behaviour: wrong. Turns out,acdording to Daniel Cook, a historian of childhood consumerism, it waspopularised as a marketing trick by clothing manufacrurers in the 1930s. Tradepublications counselled department stores that, in order to increase sales,they should create a “third stepping stone” between infant wear and older kids’clothes. Tt was only after “toddler”became a common shoppers’ term that itevolved into a broadly accepted developmental stage. Splitting kids, oradults,into ever-tinier categories has proved a sure-fire way to boost profits.And one of the easiest ways to segment a market is to magnify genderdifferences – or invent them where they did not previously exist. 26.Bysaying "it is...the rainbow"(Line 3, Para.1),the author meanspink______. [A]should not be the sole representation of girlhood [B]should not be associated with girls' innocence [C]cannot explain girls' lack of imagination [D]cannot influence girls' lives and interests 27.According to Paragraph 2, which of the following is true of colours? [A]Colours are encoded in girls' DNA. [B]Blue used to be regarded as the colour for girls. [C]Pink used to be a neutral colour in symbolising genders. [D]White is prefered by babies. 28.The author suggests that our perception of children's psychological development wasmuch influenced by_____. [A]the marketing of products for children [B]the observation of children's nature [C]researches into children's behavior [D]studies of childhood consumption 29.Wemay learn from Paragraph 4 that department stores were advised to_____. [A]focuson infant wear and older kids' clothes [B]attach equal importance to different genders [C]classify consumers into smaller groups [D]create some common shoppers' terms 30.It can be concluded that girls' attraction to pink seems to be____. [A]clearly explained by their inborn tendency [B]fully understood by clothing manufacturers [C]mainly imposed by profit-driven businessmen [D]well interpreted by psychological experts