You are on page 1of 15

Reading 1:

Separating the Sexes, Just for the Tough Years1

The middle school years (grades 7 and 8) are known to be the “tough years.”
These are the years when the uneven pace of girls’ and boys’ physical, emotional, and
cognitive development is most noticeable. Girls are ahead of boys on all counts, and
both suffer. Educators debate whether separating boys and girls during these difficult
years might improve students’ academic performance. Separate classes are now
prohibited in public schools that receive federal funds, but a change in the federal law
that prohibits them is under consideration. Although some parents and educators
oppose same-sex classes, there is some evidence that separating boys and girls in
middle school yields positive results.

Opponents of single-sex education claim that test scores of students in all-girl or

all-boy classes are no higher than those of students in mixed classes ("study”.)2
However, the research is inconclusive. Despite the fact that some research shows no
improvement in test scores, other research shows exactly opposite results (Blum).3
More important, many psychologists believe that test scores are the wrong measuring
sticks. They believe that self-confidence and self-esteem issues are more important
than test scores. In same-sex classes, girls report increased confidence and improved
attitudes toward math and science, for example (“Study”). These are results that
cannot be calculated by a test but that will help adolescents become successful adults
long after the difficult years of middle school are past. New York University professor
Carol Gilligan is certain that girls are more likely to be “creative thinkers and
risk-takers as adults if educated apart from boys in middle school” (Gross).4 Boys,
too, gain confidence when they do not have to compete with girls. Boys at this age
become angry and fight back in middle school because they feel inferior when
compared to girls, who literally “out-think” them. With no girls in the classroom, they
are more at ease with themselves and more receptive to learning (Gross).

Opponents also maintain that separate classes (or separate schools) send the
message that males and females cannot work together. They say that when students go
into the work force, they will have to work side-by-side with the opposite sex, and
attending all-girl or all-boy schools denies them the opportunity to learn how to do so
(“North”).5 However, such an argument completely ignores the fact that children
constantly interact with members of the opposite sex outside school. From playing
and squabbling with siblings to negotiating allowances, chores, and privileges with

1 Adopted from the textbook “Writing Academic English (4th edition)” (Oshima & Hogue, 2006: 144-145).
2 “Study: All –girls schools don’t improve test scores.” CNNinteractive 12 Mar. 1998, 2 June 2004
3 Blum, Justin. “Scores Soar at D. C. School with Same-Sex Classes.” 27 June 2002.
4 Gross, Jane. “Splitting Up Boys and Girls, Just for the Tough Years.” The New York Times 31 May 2004: A 16.
5 “North Carolina School Stops Same-Sex Classes.” American Civil Liberties Union News 5 April. 2000. 2 June

their opposite-sex parent, children learn and practice on a daily basis the skills they
will need in their future workplaces.

The final argument advanced by opponents of same-sex education is that it is

discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional. However, research supports exactly
the opposite conclusion: that discrimination is widespread in mixed classes. Several
studies have shown that boys dominate discussions and receive more attention than
girls and that teachers call on boys more often than they call on girls, even when girls
raise their hands (“North”). Clearly, this is discriminatory.

It should be evident that the arguments against same-sex classes are not valid. On
the contrary, many people involved in middle-school education say that same-sex
classes provide a better learning environment. Boys and girls pay less attention to
each other and more attention to their schoolwork (Marquez).1As one teacher noted,
“Girls are more relaxed and ask more questions; boys are less disruptive and more
focused” (“North”). Girls are less fearful of making mistakes and asking questions in
math and science; boys are less inhibited about sharing their ideas in language and
literature. Furthermore, schoolchildren are not disadvantaged by lack of contact with
the opposite sex because they have many opportunities outside the school setting to
interact with one another. Finally, discrimination occurs in mixed classes, so
discrimination is not a valid argument. Therefore, in my opinion, the law prohibited
same-sex classes in public schools should be changed.

1 Marquez. Laura. “No Distractions? Proposed Title IX Changes Would Allow Separate Classrooms for Grils
and Boys.” ABC News 13 May 2004, 2 June 2004
Reading 2

Altering the Forces of Nature: Genetic Engineering on Animals1

I remember the time when I first saw glowing fishes at the local fish markets in
Taiwan, I felt two different emotions. One was pure excitement from seeing these
elegant creatures, while the other was an indescribable feeling of discomfort. They
caught my eyes not only because I knew they were genetically engineered, but
because they were simply stunning. Our modern society focuses its attention on these
“stunning” results from genetic engineering practices, which in many cases, with
animals as experimental subjects, have helped provide insight into groundbreaking
discoveries in medicine, commerce, and agriculture. With the new advances in
biomedical technology followed up by medical breakthroughs, the conflict begins
when ethical considerations are drawn up on as moral guidelines. Most researchers
and lab scientists agree that genetic engineering on animals will lead to medical
breakthroughs, while some agree that it should be banned as an immoral method of
medical purposes.

In 2007, a stem cell experiment cured sickle cell anemia(镰状细胞性贫血)in

mice by genetically replacing a damaged piece of DNA. Karan Kaplan from Los
Angeles Times describes that researchers used a technique in which adult cells were
“reprogrammed” into embryonic cells which had not yet specified themselves to a
particular organ or tissue as replacements for diseased or damaged cells. These
artificially developed cells are called induced pluripotent stem cells(诱导式多功能干
细胞), or iPS cells. To develop iPS, it requires an activation of four genes that are
found dormant(休眠的;静止的)in adult cells but active in embryos. Once those
genes are activated, the cells essentially “forget” that they were once, say, liver cells,
or muscle cells, and they behave like embryonic stem cells. This new method of
research is considered “flawless”(无瑕疵的)and “works beautifully” (Kaplan, 2007)
because it ensures that the cells will not be rejected since they derive from patients’
own cells. The experiment involves extraction(取出;抽出)of mice tail cells
genetically infected with sickle cell anemia and transformation these cells into iPS
cells. They used a type of virus to turn on the four dormant genes to correct the
genetic flaw(瑕疵)by replacing a few nucleotides(核苷;核苷酸). However, a manor
consequence of this method is that it creates a c-Myc gene which has a tendency to
create tumors. But scientists found a way to completely delete it once the
replacement process had been made. This procedure was done on three 12-week rats
and twelve weeks later, the mice were producing normal cells, all virtually sound,
and improving body weight and respiratory capacity. It was also noted that no
tumors had appeared. This innovative experiment establishes “a platform for any one
of dozens of human genetic blood diseases, not just sickle cell anemia” (Kaplan,

1 This essay was retrieved from
2007). Genetic engineering, as demonstrated by this lab’s results, has potential for
future success in medicine and in curing terminal human genetic diseases prior to
this new discovery.

Although animal genetic engineering generates some of the most exciting new
human discoveries for future uses, investigation have revealed that it has many
harmful effects. Genetic engineering poses serious challenges on human health,
animal rights, and the future of agriculture. Greta Gaard examines how milk from
genetically engineered cows is harmful and the process to create these “pharm”
animals(基金动物) harms them. She states that “in the current industrial system of
factory farming, cows are production machines.” Polisac or recombinant bovine
growth hormone (rBGH)(重组牛生长激素)is a manufactured hormone(激素,荷
尔蒙)that, when injected into cows, increases the amount of milk produced by 10 to
15 percent. Although it is similar to a natural hormone found in cows and different
only by one amino acid(氨基酸), “a cow’s life span is cut from 20 to 25 years down
to five or less when the rBGH hormone is injected into its system” (Haugen, 2009).
This is a major issue of ethics when animal rights are considered. The rBGH hormone
has also proved to be more harmful to growing children than to adults. And children
in general consume more milk than adults. Because children are more vulnerable to
hormones and chemicals than adults, many become more susceptible to cancer and
have an altered onset of puberty(青春期)(Haugen, 2009). As revealed by research,
“Girls who menstruate before the age of 12 are at a higher risk of contracting breast
cancer later in life” (Haugen, 2009). It may be true that rBGH cows may alleviate
world hunger because the hormone increases milk production. But the case seems to
be counterintuitive(违反直觉的). As more cows are bred to match the milk
consumption rate, feeding livestock becomes more important than feeding people.
Since 80% of corn and 95% of the oats(燕麦)grown in the US are being fed to
animals, an increase of livestock will provide less food for people of the nation
(Haugen, 2009).

As seen, genetic engineering on animals is a complex controversy. Any research

that will be conducted must be fully supported by both sides and facts should be
addressed before a product is made. Typically all ethical issues should be considered
and made before any research is conducted upon living livestock and the end result
will yield groundbreaking success for both sides. The stem cell research on iPS cells
is an excellent new way to address the ethics behind stem cell research because it does
not kill an innocent animal and yet provides a new cure to the world of medicine.
Reading 3

Genetically Modified Foods: A Solution to World Hunger or Potential Health


Genetically modified foods have recently entered the spotlight as a proposed

solution to some of the most pressing global problems, including an ever-increasing
population and larger wealth divisions, as they create larger, more pest and weed
resistant crops that produce more food and fiber per acre. This practice, however, has
been argued as being unhealthy, unethical, and threatening to the current natural crop
production. Examining both sides of the argument reveals that genetically modified
crops are beneficial in the short term to farmers’ outputs and income, but their long
term effects are scarcely known and should therefore be considered more carefully.

The select amount of information we currently have access to with regards to

genetically modified crops is limited to only a few studies, but a host of anecdotal(轶
事的)evidence suggests that there is nothing immediately harmful or dangerous about
the production of modified food. In fact, the Council for Biotechnology
Information(CBI)(2001) quotes a 2002 study by the National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy found that 6 of the largest biotech crops planted in the United
States, including soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola, “produced an additional 4 billion
pounds of food and fiber on the same acreage, improved farm income by $1.5 billion,
and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds.” The CBI strategically concedes that
biotechnology “is not the single solution for feeding a growing population,” but,
understanding that environmentally concerned citizens constitute a large portion of
their audience, makes an appeal that GE (genetically engineered) crops will be
essential in growing “more food in a substantial way that does not deplete existing
farmland” and keeping existing wilderness area from going “under the plow.”

Although confronted with a plethora (过多;过剩) of statistics that gives

testament (证据;证明)to the ability of genetically engineered crops to produce
greater crop yield that their non-engineered counterparts, many of the opponents of
GE crops stress that even though the immediate outputs are promising, there is the
danger of unforeseen (无法预料的)future consequences. The foremost issue which
Brian Tokar, a member of the Institute for Social Ecology and author of several
articles and books on genetic engineering, address is the intellectual property war now
fought over seeds and plants. When large corporations like Mosanto began shifting
their “technological interventions” to focus on acquiring new “patented seed varieties,
as well as the particular chemicals with which those seeds were ‘designed’ to grow”
(Tokar, 2001), they were able to control large portions of the agriculture business.
Many countries in Africa and Europe, however, have rejected the import of such

1 This essay was retrieved from
genetically “manufactured” crops for another valid concern that the newly introduced
GE crops would contaminate their own local varieties. In contrast to CBI’s claim that
genetic engineering can be a major factor in overcoming world hunger, Tokar (2001)
dispels (驱散,驱逐) this statement as “the most pervasive of the numerous false
hopes that the developers of this technology have aroused.” In fact, he instead argues
that GE crops are “undermining food security and the survival of land-based peoples”
by reducing the gene pool of crops worldwide. As the dangerous effects of smoking
were not known until hundreds of years after the start of cultivation of the tobacco
plant, Tokar implies that biotech crops could have serious health impacts on humans,
as “very few laboratories around the world have the funds to carry out experiments on
GE food effects,” and “agribusiness corporations have tremendous economic and
political leverage(杠杆作用;手段)” over the priorities in agricultural research,” so
there might be side effects to eating genetically modified foods we have not yet

The collection of statistics presented by the CBI proves to be quite impressive

upon first glance and promising towards finding a solution to feeding the world’s
ever-growing population. Upon further reconsideration, however, one must wonder
whether or not the genetic technology will be monopolized by giant industry,
supplying the crops to only the highest bidder, or whether or not the lack of future
diversity in the global crop gene pool will lead to an ecological crisis, or whether or
not consuming genetically modified foods will have some unforeseen impact on
humans. Although GE crops can post staggering (令人惊讶的)short term yields,
there are too many unknown consequences of genetically modifying foods to
promote them before more extensive research is done.
Reading 4

iPads and Kindles Are Better for the Environment Than Books
By Brian Palmer

With apples and Amazon’s touting (兜售)their e-readers like iPad and Kindle,
some bookworms are bound to wonder if tomes-on-paper(纸版巨著,大部头书)
will one day become quaint relics. But the question also arises, which is more
environmentally friendly: an e-reader or an old-fashioned book?

Environmental analysis can be an endless balancing of this vs. that. Do you care
more about conserving water or avoiding toxic chemical usage? Minimizing carbon
dioxide emissions or radioactive nuclear waste? But today the Lantern(华盛顿邮报
的一个专栏)has good news: There will be no Sophie’s Choice1 when it comes to
e-books. As long as you consume a healthy number of titles, you read at a normal
pace and you don’t trade in your gadget every year, perusing(细读,精读)
electronically will lighten your environmental impact.

If the Lantern has taught you anything, it’s that most consumer products make
their biggest scar on the Earth during manufacture and transport, before they ever get
into your greedy little hands. Accordingly, green-minded consumers are usually—
although not always—better off buying fewer things when possible. Reusable cloth
diapers(尿布), for example, are better than disposables, because the environmental
costs of manufacture and transport outweigh those of washing.

Think of an e-reader as the cloth diaper of books. Sure, producing one Kindle is
tougher on the environment than printing a single paperback copy of “Pride and
Prejudice”. But every time you download and read an electric book, rather than
purchasing a new pile of paper, you’re paying back a little bit of the carbon dioxide
and water deficit from the Kindle production process. The actual operation of an
e-reader represents a small percentage of its total environmental impact, so if you run
your device into the ground, you’ll end up paying back that debt many times over.
(Unless, of course, reading “Pride and Prejudice” over and over again is enough for
you. Then, by all means, buy it in print and enjoy.)

According to the environmental consulting firm Cleantech, which aggregated a

series of studies, a single book generates about 7.5 kilograms (almost 17 pounds) of
carbon dioxide equivalents. (that’s the value all its greenhouse gas emissions
expressed in terms of the impact of carbon dioxide.) This figure includes production,
transport and either recycling or disposal.

1 Sophie’s Choice: 两男的选择,或说没有选择。 Sophie’s Choice 是作家 William Styron1979 年出版的小

说,1982 年被改编成同名电影。小说描述波兰女子 Sophie 在第二次世界大战期间的悲惨遭遇。其中一个
场景是纳粹要把她的一个孩子送去集中营,她必须在她的一双儿女中选择一个。 (a 1979 novel written by
William Styron, depicts a mother at wit’s end, faced with a forced decision in which all options have equally
negative outcomes.)
Apple’s iPad generates 130 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents during its
lifetime, according to company estimates. Amazon has not released numbers for the
Kindle, but Cleantech and other analysts put it at 168 kilograms. Those analyses do
not indicate how much additional carbon is generated per book read (as a result of the
energy required to host the e-bookstore’s servers and power the screen while you
read), but they do include the full cost of manufacture, which likely accounts for the
lion’s share of emissions. (The iPad uses just three watts of electricity while you’re
reading, far less than most light bulbs.) If we can trust those numbers, then, the iPad
pays for its CO2 emissions about one-third of the way through your 18th book. You’d
need to get halfway into your 23rd book on Kindle to get out of the environmental red.
Water is also a major consideration. The U.S. newspaper and book publishing
industries together consume 153 billion gallons of water annually, according to
figures by the nonprofit group Green Press Initiative included in the Cleantech
analysis. It takes about seven gallons to produce the average printed book, while
e-publishing companies can create a digital book with less than two cups of water.
(Like any other company, e-book publishes consume water through the paper they use
and other office activities.) Researchers estimate that 79 gallons of water are needed
to make an e-reader. So you come out on top, water-wise, after reading about a dozen

E-readers also have books beat on toxic chemicals. The production of ink for
printing releases a number of volatile organic compounds(有机化合物)into the
atmosphere, including hexane(己烷), toluene(甲苯)and xylene(二甲苯), which
contribute to smog and asthma. Some of them may also cause cancer or birth defects.
Computer production is not free of hard-to-pronounce chemicals, to be sure, but both
the iPad and the Kindle comply with Europe’s RoHS1 standards, which ban some of
the scarier chemicals that have been involved in electrics production. E-readers do,
however, require the mining of nonrenewable minerals, such as columbite-tantalite
(铌钽铁矿), which sometimes come form politically unstable regions. And experts
can’t seem to agree on whether we’re at risk of exhausting the world’s supply of
lithium(锂), the lifeblood of the e-reader’s battery.

If you’re not ready to plunk down $139 for a Kindle or $499 for an iPad, or if
you just love the feel of dead tree between your fingers, there’s one thing you can do
to significantly ease the environmental impact of your reading: Buy your books online.
Brick-and-mortar(实体的)bookstores are very inefficient because they stock more
books than they can sell. Between a quarter and a third of a bookstore’s volumes will
ultimately be shipped back to the publisher and on to recycling centers or landfills(垃

An even better option is to walk to your local library, which spread the
environmental impact of a single book over an entire community. Unfortunately,

1RoHS 是欧盟立法制定的一项强制性标准,它的全称是《关于限制在电子电器设备中使用某些有害成分的
指令》 (Restriction of Hazardous Substance)

libraries are underutilized. Studies suggest that fewer than a third of Americans visit
their local library at least once a month, and fewer than half went in the last year.
Libraries report that the average community member checks out 7.4 books per year—
far less than the three per month consumed on e-readers—and more than a third of
those items were children’s books.

As such, it is clear that iPads and Kindles are better for the environment than
books. Of course, you could also stop reading altogether. But then how would you
know how much carbon you saved?
Reading 5:

The world language

India has about a billion people and a dozen major languages of its own. One
language, and only one, is understood—by an elite—across the country: that of the
foreigners who ruled it for less than 200 years and left 52 years ago. After 1947,
English had to share its official status with north India’s Hindi and was due to lose it
in 1965. It did not happen: Southern India said no.

Today, India. Tomorrow, unofficially, the world. [The spread of English] is well
under way; at first, because the British not only built a global empire but settled
America, and now because the world (and notably America) has acquired its first truly
global—and interactive—medium, the Internet.

David Crystal, a British expert, estimates that some 350 million people speak
English as their first language. Maybe 250-350 million do or can use it as a second
language; in ex-colonial countries, notably, or in English-majority ones, like 30
million recent immigrants to the United States or Canada’s 6 million francophone
Quebeckers. And elsewhere? That is a heroic guess: 100 million to 1 billion is Mr.
Crystal’s, depending how you define “can.” Let us be bold: In all, 20-25 percent of
Earth’s 6 billion people can use English; not the English of England, let alone of Dr.
Johnson, but English.

That number is soaring as each year brings new pupils to school and carries off
monolingual oldies—and now as the Internet spreads. And the process is
self-reinforcing. As business spreads across frontiers, the company that wants to move
its executives around and to promote the best of them, regardless of nationality,
encourages the use of English. So the executive who wants to be in the frame or to
move to another employer learns to use it. English has long dominated learned
journals: German, Russian or French (depending on the field) may be useful to their
expert readers, but English is essential. So, if you want your own work
published—and widely read by your peers—then English is the language of choice.

The growth of the cinema, and still more so of television, has spread the
dominant language. Foreign movies or sitcoms may be dubbed into major languages,
but for smaller audiences they are usually subtitled. Result: A Dutch or Danish or
even Arab family has an audiovisual learning aid in its living room, and usually the
language spoken on screen is English.

The birth of the computer and its American operating systems gave English a
nudge ahead; that of the Internet has given it a huge push. And Web-linked household
today has a library of information available at the click of a mouse. And, unlike the
books on its own shelves or in the public library, maybe four-fifths is written in
English. That proportion may lessen, as more non-English sites spring up. But English
will surely dominate.

The Web of course works both ways. An American has far better access today
than ever before to texts in German or Polish or Gaelic. But the average American has
no great incentive to profit from it. That is not true the other way round. The Web may
even save some mini-languages. But the big winner will be English.
Reading 6:

Brazil considers linguistic barricade1

Downie, Andrew

In Brazil’s shopping malls, the massive consumerist shrines formerly known here
as centors comerciais, windows that use to advertise a promocao now trumpet “sale.”
Descontos has become “50 percent off,” and the upcoming collections that were once
billed as primavera/verao are now touted as “spring/summer.” A hairdressing salon
calls itself Exuberant; a watch store is named Overtime; a restaurant goes by the name
New Garden.

In Brazil, the largest Portuguese-speaking nation in the world, English is taking

over. And Deputy Aldo Rebelo says “Basta!” “It is time to fight this disrespect of our
language,” says Mrl Rebelo, the author of a new bill designed to “promote and defend”
the Lusitanian [Portuguese] language. “People feel humiliated and offended by having
to pronounce works in a language that is not theirs. But they are obliged to, because
shop owners or other people want to exhibit a false knowledge,” Rebelo says. “This is
the public domain; people need to buy things, to go into shopping centers, but people
cannot communicate fluently because of the abuse of foreign expressions in our

Rebelo’s tongue-lashing against linguistic invasion is a reaction to globalization’s

march. He is not alone in the defense of mother tongues. Poland recently passed a law
to enforce language purity by banning foreign words from everyday transactions
unless Polish translations are provided alongside. A Polish language council will catch
violators, who could face stiff fines. Poland’s campaign has been compared to the
notorious French effort to stamp out “franglais.”

With 178 million native speakers worldwide, Portuguese ranks seventh among
most-spoken native languages after Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, English, Arabic, and

Rebelo’s bill … rejects the increasing influx of English expressions and requires
that Brazil’s native tongue be used in business, formal, and social situations. While
those strictures are laughed off by many as unenforceable—one envisions “language
police” monitoring café chatter and the like—Rebelo’s bill thunders that those not
respecting Portuguese are “damaging Brazil’s cultural patrimony.” The linguistic
outlaws would face as yet undecided punishment—perhaps classes in Portuguese,
Rebelo has suggested.

One goal of the bill is linguistic purity among government officials, Rebelo says,

1 Downie, Andrew. “Brazil Considers Linguistic Barricade.” Christian Science Monitor 6 Sept. 2000: 26 pars.
13 Sept. 2004.
citing the offenses of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who recently used the
English expression “fast track” in a speech.

The bill would particularly affect the worlds of finance and commerce, where
throwing up a sign in English is seen as a trendy way of grabbing potential customers’
attention. According to a recent study, 93 of the 252 stores in Sao Paulo’s Morumbi
shopping center featured English words in their names. That would change under
Rebelo’s law. The owners of Laundromat would have to wash their hands of the name.
hot dogs would be off the menu, and personal trainers would have to find a new way
to describe their services. The Banco do Brasil’s “Personal Banking” would need to
translate itself, and the Rock in Rio music festival would have to dance to a different
tune. Children’s clothing store Kid Smart would lose its exotic appeal in a country
where most people do not speak English.

Although Rebelo recognizes that in today’s fast-paced and shrinking world,

words like “e-mail,” “mouse,” and “delete” have entered Portuguese almost overnight,
he says the rush to use English words ignores the fact that in many cases perfectly
good Portuguese ones already exist. “We can say entrega a domicilio because
everyone knows what it means, so why use the word ‘delivery’?” Rebelo asks,
highlighting one recent fad. “Restaurants use ‘valet parking,’ but why not use
maniobrista?” this law will prohibit these abuses.

Linguistic experts agree and point to the richness of Portuguese. Used as an

official language in seven countries outside of Portugal, Portuguese boasts 24 vowel
sounds, compared with five in English, and includes more than 350,000 words
derived primarily from Latin, Arabic, and Iberian tribal languages.

Antonio Olinto, an author and member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, says
that, although it is impossible to legislate how people talk, the proposal has value
because it has created a debate about the use of foreign words in Brazil. While
stopping the trend is impossible, he says, Brazil can counter the linguistic invasion by
adapting its language, just as it did with the word “football” (soccer), which over time
became futebol. “Globalization exists, and I don’t think there is any way of escaping
it,” says Mr. Olinto. “But in time, words will be adapted into Portuguese, and things
will get better.” Rebelo acknowledges that the desire to speak English may eventually
ebb, but he called on Brasilians meanwhile to use their mother tongue whenever

The legislator advises those tempted to utter or write foreign words to consult the
style book of O Estado de Sao Paulo, one of the nation’s biggest newspapers, which
offers the following wordy wisdom: “(1) You have a language, Portuguese, that is just
as good and as functional as any other. (2) It is your language.”

But it’s the cash register, not linguistic pride, that inspires lingerie store manager
Silvana Cannone when she’s looking for just the right word. “We cut the letters out
ourselves, and “Sale” is shorter than Promocao, so it’s easier,” she explains.
‘”Nowadays, everyone knows what ‘sale’ means, and besides, it sound more chic.”
Reading 3:

Reading 4: