With all my kids officially back in school, a time-honored family tradition is also well underway—the evening bedtime battle. We don’t play when it comes to sleep in our house. During the school year, my 3 kids under 10 have a strict 7:30 bedtime. My 10- and 13-year-olds get exactly one extra hour, and during the summer those bedtimes roll back by one hour only. I’ll be honest—most of my mom friends think I’m crazy. When they hear that my kids go to bed at 7:30 they usually give a stunned laugh and say, "But why? And how?!" The why is easy. Kids need more sleep than adults in order to keep up with the demands of their rapidly growing bodies and brains—a lot more sleep, in fact. 3- to 5-year-olds need 11 to 13 hours of sleep, 5- to 10-year-olds need 10 or 11 hours of sleep, and 10- to 17-year-olds need 8.5 to 11 hours of sleep each night.

Lack of sleep increases activity in the amygdala, the emotional rapid-response center of the brain. Kids who don’t sleep enough feel more negative emotions and have a diminished ability to control their responses to those emotions. An overactive amygdala inhibits kids’ ability to feel positive emotions, which is why overly tired kids will cry or protest when presented with an activity they normally enjoy. Even more concerning, kids who don’t sleep enough are at a much higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders later in life.

The highest amounts of human growth hormone are released to the body when kids are sleeping. If your child goes to bed late one night, it’s not going to stunt their growth—but if your child chronically gets even an hour or two less than the amount of sleep he or she needs, physical development is likely to be affected. They’ll also age faster on a cellular level. Plus, they’ll be sick all the time, since sleep is when their bodies make and release cytokines, a protein that targets infection. Sounds pretty terrible, huh?

Lack of sleep literally makes learning impossible, according to researchers at University Children’s Hospital Zurich: During the day, our synapses get excited as a response to the stimuli that surround us. During sleep, however, these synapses restore themselves and their activity "normalizes". Without this restorative period, the synapses stay maximally excited for too long. Such a state inhibits neuro plasticity, which means that learning new things is no longer possible.Since kids’ brains are by far more neuro-plastic than adults, this means that lack of sleep has an greater effect on their synapses, depriving them of the rapid ability to learn that characterizes childhood.

Apart from those, I didn’t even go into the way sleep regulates metabolism, cortisol, or motor function—it’s safe to say that without adequate sleep, literally every single system in our children’s bodies is severely compromised.

The author uses her own example to show______.

With all my kids officially back in school, a time-honored family tradition is also well underway—the evening bedtime battle. We don’t play when it comes to sleep in our house. During the school year, my 3 kids under 10 have a strict 7:30 bedtime. My 10- and 13-year-olds get exactly one extra hour, and during the summer those bedtimes roll back by one hour only. I’ll be honest—most of my mom friends think I’m crazy. When they hear that my kids go to bed at 7:30 they usually give a stunned laugh and say, "But why? And how?!" The why is easy. Kids need more sleep than adults in order to keep up with the demands of their rapidly growing bodies and brains—a lot more sleep, in fact. 3- to 5-year-olds need 11 to 13 hours of sleep, 5- to 10-year-olds need 10 or 11 hours of sleep, and 10- to 17-year-olds need 8.5 to 11 hours of sleep each night.

Lack of sleep increases activity in the amygdala, the emotional rapid-response center of the brain. Kids who don’t sleep enough feel more negative emotions and have a diminished ability to control their responses to those emotions. An overactive amygdala inhibits kids’ ability to feel positive emotions, which is why overly tired kids will cry or protest when presented with an activity they normally enjoy. Even more concerning, kids who don’t sleep enough are at a much higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders later in life.

The highest amounts of human growth hormone are released to the body when kids are sleeping. If your child goes to bed late one night, it’s not going to stunt their growth—but if your child chronically gets even an hour or two less than the amount of sleep he or she needs, physical development is likely to be affected. They’ll also age faster on a cellular level. Plus, they’ll be sick all the time, since sleep is when their bodies make and release cytokines, a protein that targets infection. Sounds pretty terrible, huh?

Lack of sleep literally makes learning impossible, according to researchers at University Children’s Hospital Zurich: During the day, our synapses get excited as a response to the stimuli that surround us. During sleep, however, these synapses restore themselves and their activity "normalizes". Without this restorative period, the synapses stay maximally excited for too long. Such a state inhibits neuro plasticity, which means that learning new things is no longer possible.Since kids’ brains are by far more neuro-plastic than adults, this means that lack of sleep has an greater effect on their synapses, depriving them of the rapid ability to learn that characterizes childhood.

Apart from those, I didn’t even go into the way sleep regulates metabolism, cortisol, or motor function—it’s safe to say that without adequate sleep, literally every single system in our children’s bodies is severely compromised.

Overly tired kids tend to cry or protest because______.

With all my kids officially back in school, a time-honored family tradition is also well underway—the evening bedtime battle. We don’t play when it comes to sleep in our house. During the school year, my 3 kids under 10 have a strict 7:30 bedtime. My 10- and 13-year-olds get exactly one extra hour, and during the summer those bedtimes roll back by one hour only. I’ll be honest—most of my mom friends think I’m crazy. When they hear that my kids go to bed at 7:30 they usually give a stunned laugh and say, "But why? And how?!" The why is easy. Kids need more sleep than adults in order to keep up with the demands of their rapidly growing bodies and brains—a lot more sleep, in fact. 3- to 5-year-olds need 11 to 13 hours of sleep, 5- to 10-year-olds need 10 or 11 hours of sleep, and 10- to 17-year-olds need 8.5 to 11 hours of sleep each night.

Lack of sleep increases activity in the amygdala, the emotional rapid-response center of the brain. Kids who don’t sleep enough feel more negative emotions and have a diminished ability to control their responses to those emotions. An overactive amygdala inhibits kids’ ability to feel positive emotions, which is why overly tired kids will cry or protest when presented with an activity they normally enjoy. Even more concerning, kids who don’t sleep enough are at a much higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders later in life.

The highest amounts of human growth hormone are released to the body when kids are sleeping. If your child goes to bed late one night, it’s not going to stunt their growth—but if your child chronically gets even an hour or two less than the amount of sleep he or she needs, physical development is likely to be affected. They’ll also age faster on a cellular level. Plus, they’ll be sick all the time, since sleep is when their bodies make and release cytokines, a protein that targets infection. Sounds pretty terrible, huh?

Lack of sleep literally makes learning impossible, according to researchers at University Children’s Hospital Zurich: During the day, our synapses get excited as a response to the stimuli that surround us. During sleep, however, these synapses restore themselves and their activity "normalizes". Without this restorative period, the synapses stay maximally excited for too long. Such a state inhibits neuro plasticity, which means that learning new things is no longer possible.Since kids’ brains are by far more neuro-plastic than adults, this means that lack of sleep has an greater effect on their synapses, depriving them of the rapid ability to learn that characterizes childhood.

Apart from those, I didn’t even go into the way sleep regulates metabolism, cortisol, or motor function—it’s safe to say that without adequate sleep, literally every single system in our children’s bodies is severely compromised.

What is the function of cytokines?

With all my kids officially back in school, a time-honored family tradition is also well underway—the evening bedtime battle. We don’t play when it comes to sleep in our house. During the school year, my 3 kids under 10 have a strict 7:30 bedtime. My 10- and 13-year-olds get exactly one extra hour, and during the summer those bedtimes roll back by one hour only. I’ll be honest—most of my mom friends think I’m crazy. When they hear that my kids go to bed at 7:30 they usually give a stunned laugh and say, "But why? And how?!" The why is easy. Kids need more sleep than adults in order to keep up with the demands of their rapidly growing bodies and brains—a lot more sleep, in fact. 3- to 5-year-olds need 11 to 13 hours of sleep, 5- to 10-year-olds need 10 or 11 hours of sleep, and 10- to 17-year-olds need 8.5 to 11 hours of sleep each night.

Lack of sleep increases activity in the amygdala, the emotional rapid-response center of the brain. Kids who don’t sleep enough feel more negative emotions and have a diminished ability to control their responses to those emotions. An overactive amygdala inhibits kids’ ability to feel positive emotions, which is why overly tired kids will cry or protest when presented with an activity they normally enjoy. Even more concerning, kids who don’t sleep enough are at a much higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders later in life.

The highest amounts of human growth hormone are released to the body when kids are sleeping. If your child goes to bed late one night, it’s not going to stunt their growth—but if your child chronically gets even an hour or two less than the amount of sleep he or she needs, physical development is likely to be affected. They’ll also age faster on a cellular level. Plus, they’ll be sick all the time, since sleep is when their bodies make and release cytokines, a protein that targets infection. Sounds pretty terrible, huh?

Lack of sleep literally makes learning impossible, according to researchers at University Children’s Hospital Zurich: During the day, our synapses get excited as a response to the stimuli that surround us. During sleep, however, these synapses restore themselves and their activity "normalizes". Without this restorative period, the synapses stay maximally excited for too long. Such a state inhibits neuro plasticity, which means that learning new things is no longer possible.Since kids’ brains are by far more neuro-plastic than adults, this means that lack of sleep has an greater effect on their synapses, depriving them of the rapid ability to learn that characterizes childhood.

Apart from those, I didn’t even go into the way sleep regulates metabolism, cortisol, or motor function—it’s safe to say that without adequate sleep, literally every single system in our children’s bodies is severely compromised.

If the synapses stay maximally excited for too long______.

With all my kids officially back in school, a time-honored family tradition is also well underway—the evening bedtime battle. We don’t play when it comes to sleep in our house. During the school year, my 3 kids under 10 have a strict 7:30 bedtime. My 10- and 13-year-olds get exactly one extra hour, and during the summer those bedtimes roll back by one hour only. I’ll be honest—most of my mom friends think I’m crazy. When they hear that my kids go to bed at 7:30 they usually give a stunned laugh and say, "But why? And how?!" The why is easy. Kids need more sleep than adults in order to keep up with the demands of their rapidly growing bodies and brains—a lot more sleep, in fact. 3- to 5-year-olds need 11 to 13 hours of sleep, 5- to 10-year-olds need 10 or 11 hours of sleep, and 10- to 17-year-olds need 8.5 to 11 hours of sleep each night.

Lack of sleep increases activity in the amygdala, the emotional rapid-response center of the brain. Kids who don’t sleep enough feel more negative emotions and have a diminished ability to control their responses to those emotions. An overactive amygdala inhibits kids’ ability to feel positive emotions, which is why overly tired kids will cry or protest when presented with an activity they normally enjoy. Even more concerning, kids who don’t sleep enough are at a much higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders later in life.

The highest amounts of human growth hormone are released to the body when kids are sleeping. If your child goes to bed late one night, it’s not going to stunt their growth—but if your child chronically gets even an hour or two less than the amount of sleep he or she needs, physical development is likely to be affected. They’ll also age faster on a cellular level. Plus, they’ll be sick all the time, since sleep is when their bodies make and release cytokines, a protein that targets infection. Sounds pretty terrible, huh?

Lack of sleep literally makes learning impossible, according to researchers at University Children’s Hospital Zurich: During the day, our synapses get excited as a response to the stimuli that surround us. During sleep, however, these synapses restore themselves and their activity "normalizes". Without this restorative period, the synapses stay maximally excited for too long. Such a state inhibits neuro plasticity, which means that learning new things is no longer possible.Since kids’ brains are by far more neuro-plastic than adults, this means that lack of sleep has an greater effect on their synapses, depriving them of the rapid ability to learn that characterizes childhood.

Apart from those, I didn’t even go into the way sleep regulates metabolism, cortisol, or motor function—it’s safe to say that without adequate sleep, literally every single system in our children’s bodies is severely compromised.

This passage is mainly about______.

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with: how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment.Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.

"Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left." The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer.To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance: Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And: What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.

Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine.By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.

Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.

According to Paragraph 1, how did the brainstorming session go after a while?

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with: how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment.Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.

"Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left." The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer.To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance: Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And: What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.

Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine.By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.

Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.

According to the author,what is the better way to brainstorm?

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with: how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment.Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.

"Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left." The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer.To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance: Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And: What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.

Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine.By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.

Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.

What probably enlightened the author to the new method to brainstorm?

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with: how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment.Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.

"Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left." The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer.To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance: Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And: What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.

Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine.By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.

Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.

Why is the new method effective?

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with: how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment.Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.

"Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left." The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer.To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance: Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And: What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.

Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine.By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.

Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.

What is the significant thing that Martin Seligman did that triggered a movement?

New Yorkers do it. Parisians do it.Fashion types, Swedes and architects do it.In fact, name any stylish tribe and you’ll find that they do it. Wear black, that is—a colour that has come to signify so much：rigour, elegance, sex appeal, piety, formality,slenderness, even wickedness. Recently, however, black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade. And maybe that is no bad thing.

Scroll through any British fashion website today and a rainbow of colour beams out.The breadth of shades feels remarkable: Topshop sets out its stall with a parrot-green silk skirt, a lemon coat and an azure trouser suit. At Boden, it’s all tomato-red cardigans and spotty cerise frocks. At Zara, there are russet and emerald tartans and rollneck jumpers in highlighter pen yellow and candy pink.

Yes, Britain is in the midst of a heatwave, but this is no seasonal aberration. For months, the fashion news agenda has been hijacked by colour, seen everywhere from Amal Clooney’s dandelion-yellow royal wedding frock to Janelle Monae’s so-called "vagina" trousers ( pink, of course).

Colour is hot, and the trend forecaster WGSN has the data to prove it. In January, it says, brightly coloured clothes represented a 20.2% share of the UK market, up from 16.7% two years previously. Meanwhile, between April 2017 and April 2018, black fell by 10%. Yellow has performed spectacularly, up 50% year on year. Another retail analyst, Edited, has a different take, but one which is nevertheless telling. Though it reports that the overall ratio of black clothing sold is up, the shade has slipped out of the fashion spotlight, failing by 2% this year within "best-selling products—the stuff that sells out fast", according to the retail analysis and insights director Katie Smith.

Black is not dead, but Florence Allday, Euromonitor International’s analyst, predicts it will become an "increasingly smaller proportion of retailers’ product offering", thanks to shifts in our lifestyles. "Now your office can be anywhere, the boundaries between formal/informal, work/home, online/offline are blurring," she says. "Colour is no longer seen as frivolous, eccentric or inappropriate."

The philosophy behind John Lewis’s biggest womenswear relaunch in decades, on sale in September, is about using colour as a means for expressing individuality, with most items available in up to four hues. The professionally seen-and-not-heard have used colour cannily for decades.The Queen, for one, dresses brightly to ensure visibility. Recently, she has noticeably ramped up the intensity, dabbling in head-to-toe lime green and shocking chartreuse. Such expert tricks are becoming part of civilian wardrobes, too, thanks to social media, and what Smith describes as "millennial peacocking". She says: "It’s the fastest way to stand out on an endlessly updating feed."

The underlined sentence "black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade" most probably means that______.

New Yorkers do it. Parisians do it.Fashion types, Swedes and architects do it.In fact, name any stylish tribe and you’ll find that they do it. Wear black, that is—a colour that has come to signify so much：rigour, elegance, sex appeal, piety, formality,slenderness, even wickedness. Recently, however, black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade. And maybe that is no bad thing.

Scroll through any British fashion website today and a rainbow of colour beams out.The breadth of shades feels remarkable: Topshop sets out its stall with a parrot-green silk skirt, a lemon coat and an azure trouser suit. At Boden, it’s all tomato-red cardigans and spotty cerise frocks. At Zara, there are russet and emerald tartans and rollneck jumpers in highlighter pen yellow and candy pink.

Yes, Britain is in the midst of a heatwave, but this is no seasonal aberration. For months, the fashion news agenda has been hijacked by colour, seen everywhere from Amal Clooney’s dandelion-yellow royal wedding frock to Janelle Monae’s so-called "vagina" trousers ( pink, of course).

Colour is hot, and the trend forecaster WGSN has the data to prove it. In January, it says, brightly coloured clothes represented a 20.2% share of the UK market, up from 16.7% two years previously. Meanwhile, between April 2017 and April 2018, black fell by 10%. Yellow has performed spectacularly, up 50% year on year. Another retail analyst, Edited, has a different take, but one which is nevertheless telling. Though it reports that the overall ratio of black clothing sold is up, the shade has slipped out of the fashion spotlight, failing by 2% this year within "best-selling products—the stuff that sells out fast", according to the retail analysis and insights director Katie Smith.

Black is not dead, but Florence Allday, Euromonitor International’s analyst, predicts it will become an "increasingly smaller proportion of retailers’ product offering", thanks to shifts in our lifestyles. "Now your office can be anywhere, the boundaries between formal/informal, work/home, online/offline are blurring," she says. "Colour is no longer seen as frivolous, eccentric or inappropriate."

The philosophy behind John Lewis’s biggest womenswear relaunch in decades, on sale in September, is about using colour as a means for expressing individuality, with most items available in up to four hues. The professionally seen-and-not-heard have used colour cannily for decades.The Queen, for one, dresses brightly to ensure visibility. Recently, she has noticeably ramped up the intensity, dabbling in head-to-toe lime green and shocking chartreuse. Such expert tricks are becoming part of civilian wardrobes, too, thanks to social media, and what Smith describes as "millennial peacocking". She says: "It’s the fastest way to stand out on an endlessly updating feed."

Why does the author list the example of Topshop, Boden and Zara?

New Yorkers do it. Parisians do it.Fashion types, Swedes and architects do it.In fact, name any stylish tribe and you’ll find that they do it. Wear black, that is—a colour that has come to signify so much：rigour, elegance, sex appeal, piety, formality,slenderness, even wickedness. Recently, however, black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade. And maybe that is no bad thing.

Scroll through any British fashion website today and a rainbow of colour beams out.The breadth of shades feels remarkable: Topshop sets out its stall with a parrot-green silk skirt, a lemon coat and an azure trouser suit. At Boden, it’s all tomato-red cardigans and spotty cerise frocks. At Zara, there are russet and emerald tartans and rollneck jumpers in highlighter pen yellow and candy pink.

Yes, Britain is in the midst of a heatwave, but this is no seasonal aberration. For months, the fashion news agenda has been hijacked by colour, seen everywhere from Amal Clooney’s dandelion-yellow royal wedding frock to Janelle Monae’s so-called "vagina" trousers ( pink, of course).

Colour is hot, and the trend forecaster WGSN has the data to prove it. In January, it says, brightly coloured clothes represented a 20.2% share of the UK market, up from 16.7% two years previously. Meanwhile, between April 2017 and April 2018, black fell by 10%. Yellow has performed spectacularly, up 50% year on year. Another retail analyst, Edited, has a different take, but one which is nevertheless telling. Though it reports that the overall ratio of black clothing sold is up, the shade has slipped out of the fashion spotlight, failing by 2% this year within "best-selling products—the stuff that sells out fast", according to the retail analysis and insights director Katie Smith.

Black is not dead, but Florence Allday, Euromonitor International’s analyst, predicts it will become an "increasingly smaller proportion of retailers’ product offering", thanks to shifts in our lifestyles. "Now your office can be anywhere, the boundaries between formal/informal, work/home, online/offline are blurring," she says. "Colour is no longer seen as frivolous, eccentric or inappropriate."

The philosophy behind John Lewis’s biggest womenswear relaunch in decades, on sale in September, is about using colour as a means for expressing individuality, with most items available in up to four hues. The professionally seen-and-not-heard have used colour cannily for decades.The Queen, for one, dresses brightly to ensure visibility. Recently, she has noticeably ramped up the intensity, dabbling in head-to-toe lime green and shocking chartreuse. Such expert tricks are becoming part of civilian wardrobes, too, thanks to social media, and what Smith describes as "millennial peacocking". She says: "It’s the fastest way to stand out on an endlessly updating feed."

Which color is the most popular one now according to WGSN data?

New Yorkers do it. Parisians do it.Fashion types, Swedes and architects do it.In fact, name any stylish tribe and you’ll find that they do it. Wear black, that is—a colour that has come to signify so much：rigour, elegance, sex appeal, piety, formality,slenderness, even wickedness. Recently, however, black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade. And maybe that is no bad thing.

Scroll through any British fashion website today and a rainbow of colour beams out.The breadth of shades feels remarkable: Topshop sets out its stall with a parrot-green silk skirt, a lemon coat and an azure trouser suit. At Boden, it’s all tomato-red cardigans and spotty cerise frocks. At Zara, there are russet and emerald tartans and rollneck jumpers in highlighter pen yellow and candy pink.

Yes, Britain is in the midst of a heatwave, but this is no seasonal aberration. For months, the fashion news agenda has been hijacked by colour, seen everywhere from Amal Clooney’s dandelion-yellow royal wedding frock to Janelle Monae’s so-called "vagina" trousers ( pink, of course).

Colour is hot, and the trend forecaster WGSN has the data to prove it. In January, it says, brightly coloured clothes represented a 20.2% share of the UK market, up from 16.7% two years previously. Meanwhile, between April 2017 and April 2018, black fell by 10%. Yellow has performed spectacularly, up 50% year on year. Another retail analyst, Edited, has a different take, but one which is nevertheless telling. Though it reports that the overall ratio of black clothing sold is up, the shade has slipped out of the fashion spotlight, failing by 2% this year within "best-selling products—the stuff that sells out fast", according to the retail analysis and insights director Katie Smith.

Black is not dead, but Florence Allday, Euromonitor International’s analyst, predicts it will become an "increasingly smaller proportion of retailers’ product offering", thanks to shifts in our lifestyles. "Now your office can be anywhere, the boundaries between formal/informal, work/home, online/offline are blurring," she says. "Colour is no longer seen as frivolous, eccentric or inappropriate."

The philosophy behind John Lewis’s biggest womenswear relaunch in decades, on sale in September, is about using colour as a means for expressing individuality, with most items available in up to four hues. The professionally seen-and-not-heard have used colour cannily for decades.The Queen, for one, dresses brightly to ensure visibility. Recently, she has noticeably ramped up the intensity, dabbling in head-to-toe lime green and shocking chartreuse. Such expert tricks are becoming part of civilian wardrobes, too, thanks to social media, and what Smith describes as "millennial peacocking". She says: "It’s the fastest way to stand out on an endlessly updating feed."

Which of the following sentences is true according to the passage?

New Yorkers do it. Parisians do it.Fashion types, Swedes and architects do it.In fact, name any stylish tribe and you’ll find that they do it. Wear black, that is—a colour that has come to signify so much：rigour, elegance, sex appeal, piety, formality,slenderness, even wickedness. Recently, however, black’s supposedly timeless status as the go-to hue for the chic has been thrown into the shade. And maybe that is no bad thing.

Scroll through any British fashion website today and a rainbow of colour beams out.The breadth of shades feels remarkable: Topshop sets out its stall with a parrot-green silk skirt, a lemon coat and an azure trouser suit. At Boden, it’s all tomato-red cardigans and spotty cerise frocks. At Zara, there are russet and emerald tartans and rollneck jumpers in highlighter pen yellow and candy pink.

Yes, Britain is in the midst of a heatwave, but this is no seasonal aberration. For months, the fashion news agenda has been hijacked by colour, seen everywhere from Amal Clooney’s dandelion-yellow royal wedding frock to Janelle Monae’s so-called "vagina" trousers ( pink, of course).

Colour is hot, and the trend forecaster WGSN has the data to prove it. In January, it says, brightly coloured clothes represented a 20.2% share of the UK market, up from 16.7% two years previously. Meanwhile, between April 2017 and April 2018, black fell by 10%. Yellow has performed spectacularly, up 50% year on year. Another retail analyst, Edited, has a different take, but one which is nevertheless telling. Though it reports that the overall ratio of black clothing sold is up, the shade has slipped out of the fashion spotlight, failing by 2% this year within "best-selling products—the stuff that sells out fast", according to the retail analysis and insights director Katie Smith.

Black is not dead, but Florence Allday, Euromonitor International’s analyst, predicts it will become an "increasingly smaller proportion of retailers’ product offering", thanks to shifts in our lifestyles. "Now your office can be anywhere, the boundaries between formal/informal, work/home, online/offline are blurring," she says. "Colour is no longer seen as frivolous, eccentric or inappropriate."

The philosophy behind John Lewis’s biggest womenswear relaunch in decades, on sale in September, is about using colour as a means for expressing individuality, with most items available in up to four hues. The professionally seen-and-not-heard have used colour cannily for decades.The Queen, for one, dresses brightly to ensure visibility. Recently, she has noticeably ramped up the intensity, dabbling in head-to-toe lime green and shocking chartreuse. Such expert tricks are becoming part of civilian wardrobes, too, thanks to social media, and what Smith describes as "millennial peacocking". She says: "It’s the fastest way to stand out on an endlessly updating feed."

According to the passage, color CANNOT represent______.

A free, accessible exhibition about Nelson Mandela, marking what would have been his 100th birthday, is such an indisputably good thing, it seems mean-spirited to even try to assess it critically, as if to do so were to take issue with the South African figurehead himself.

Mandela is the model of a wise, benign, dignified statesman, and the world could certainly do with more of those right now. Barack Obama pointed this out last week in Johannesburg. Giving the annual Mandela lecture, he contrasted the progressive democratic triumphs of the 1990s—such as South Africa and the collapse of the Soviet Union—with the present climate of tribalism, resentment and "strongman politics". Addressing Mandela by his clan name, he said : "We have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope."

Those looking to do so will find ample inspiration and ammunition at this show, even if the presentation is somewhat dry and dutiful. This is primarily a two-dimensional exhibition of text and photographic images, neatly designed and laid out across six walk around clusters of wall-sized panels, huddled together in the cavernous semi-cafe space of the Purcell Room.

Distilling a life as storied as Mandela’s into digestible chunks is a daunting task, but it has been done judiciously, combining biography with political context, plus personal episodes and anecdotes. Each set of panels addresses a phase of Mandela’s life and persona: character, comrade, leader, prisoner, negotiator, statesman.

It is a story of rags to riches. The beginning "character" section includes Mandela’s recollection of donning his first pair of trousers—a novelty for a 1920s South African village boy—to go to school. His father simply put him in a pair of his own trousers, cut them at the knee and tied them with string.

From there, the story progresses through Mandela’s political awakening, his organised resistance to the apartheid regime and deepening involvement with the African National Congress, imprisonment for 27 years, and eventual release and election as South Africa’s first black president.

According to Barack Obama, how is today’s world different from that in the 1990s?

A free, accessible exhibition about Nelson Mandela, marking what would have been his 100th birthday, is such an indisputably good thing, it seems mean-spirited to even try to assess it critically, as if to do so were to take issue with the South African figurehead himself.

Mandela is the model of a wise, benign, dignified statesman, and the world could certainly do with more of those right now. Barack Obama pointed this out last week in Johannesburg. Giving the annual Mandela lecture, he contrasted the progressive democratic triumphs of the 1990s—such as South Africa and the collapse of the Soviet Union—with the present climate of tribalism, resentment and "strongman politics". Addressing Mandela by his clan name, he said : "We have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope."

Those looking to do so will find ample inspiration and ammunition at this show, even if the presentation is somewhat dry and dutiful. This is primarily a two-dimensional exhibition of text and photographic images, neatly designed and laid out across six walk around clusters of wall-sized panels, huddled together in the cavernous semi-cafe space of the Purcell Room.

Distilling a life as storied as Mandela’s into digestible chunks is a daunting task, but it has been done judiciously, combining biography with political context, plus personal episodes and anecdotes. Each set of panels addresses a phase of Mandela’s life and persona: character, comrade, leader, prisoner, negotiator, statesman.

It is a story of rags to riches. The beginning "character" section includes Mandela’s recollection of donning his first pair of trousers—a novelty for a 1920s South African village boy—to go to school. His father simply put him in a pair of his own trousers, cut them at the knee and tied them with string.

From there, the story progresses through Mandela’s political awakening, his organised resistance to the apartheid regime and deepening involvement with the African National Congress, imprisonment for 27 years, and eventual release and election as South Africa’s first black president.

What does the exhibition consist of?

A free, accessible exhibition about Nelson Mandela, marking what would have been his 100th birthday, is such an indisputably good thing, it seems mean-spirited to even try to assess it critically, as if to do so were to take issue with the South African figurehead himself.

Mandela is the model of a wise, benign, dignified statesman, and the world could certainly do with more of those right now. Barack Obama pointed this out last week in Johannesburg. Giving the annual Mandela lecture, he contrasted the progressive democratic triumphs of the 1990s—such as South Africa and the collapse of the Soviet Union—with the present climate of tribalism, resentment and "strongman politics". Addressing Mandela by his clan name, he said : "We have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope."

Those looking to do so will find ample inspiration and ammunition at this show, even if the presentation is somewhat dry and dutiful. This is primarily a two-dimensional exhibition of text and photographic images, neatly designed and laid out across six walk around clusters of wall-sized panels, huddled together in the cavernous semi-cafe space of the Purcell Room.

Distilling a life as storied as Mandela’s into digestible chunks is a daunting task, but it has been done judiciously, combining biography with political context, plus personal episodes and anecdotes. Each set of panels addresses a phase of Mandela’s life and persona: character, comrade, leader, prisoner, negotiator, statesman.

It is a story of rags to riches. The beginning "character" section includes Mandela’s recollection of donning his first pair of trousers—a novelty for a 1920s South African village boy—to go to school. His father simply put him in a pair of his own trousers, cut them at the knee and tied them with string.

From there, the story progresses through Mandela’s political awakening, his organised resistance to the apartheid regime and deepening involvement with the African National Congress, imprisonment for 27 years, and eventual release and election as South Africa’s first black president.

Which of the following title is NOT accurate to describe Nelson Mandela?

A free, accessible exhibition about Nelson Mandela, marking what would have been his 100th birthday, is such an indisputably good thing, it seems mean-spirited to even try to assess it critically, as if to do so were to take issue with the South African figurehead himself.

Mandela is the model of a wise, benign, dignified statesman, and the world could certainly do with more of those right now. Barack Obama pointed this out last week in Johannesburg. Giving the annual Mandela lecture, he contrasted the progressive democratic triumphs of the 1990s—such as South Africa and the collapse of the Soviet Union—with the present climate of tribalism, resentment and "strongman politics". Addressing Mandela by his clan name, he said : "We have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope."

Those looking to do so will find ample inspiration and ammunition at this show, even if the presentation is somewhat dry and dutiful. This is primarily a two-dimensional exhibition of text and photographic images, neatly designed and laid out across six walk around clusters of wall-sized panels, huddled together in the cavernous semi-cafe space of the Purcell Room.

Distilling a life as storied as Mandela’s into digestible chunks is a daunting task, but it has been done judiciously, combining biography with political context, plus personal episodes and anecdotes. Each set of panels addresses a phase of Mandela’s life and persona: character, comrade, leader, prisoner, negotiator, statesman.

It is a story of rags to riches. The beginning "character" section includes Mandela’s recollection of donning his first pair of trousers—a novelty for a 1920s South African village boy—to go to school. His father simply put him in a pair of his own trousers, cut them at the knee and tied them with string.

From there, the story progresses through Mandela’s political awakening, his organised resistance to the apartheid regime and deepening involvement with the African National Congress, imprisonment for 27 years, and eventual release and election as South Africa’s first black president.

The underlined sentence"It is a story of rags to riches." most probably means that______.

A free, accessible exhibition about Nelson Mandela, marking what would have been his 100th birthday, is such an indisputably good thing, it seems mean-spirited to even try to assess it critically, as if to do so were to take issue with the South African figurehead himself.

Mandela is the model of a wise, benign, dignified statesman, and the world could certainly do with more of those right now. Barack Obama pointed this out last week in Johannesburg. Giving the annual Mandela lecture, he contrasted the progressive democratic triumphs of the 1990s—such as South Africa and the collapse of the Soviet Union—with the present climate of tribalism, resentment and "strongman politics". Addressing Mandela by his clan name, he said : "We have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope."

Those looking to do so will find ample inspiration and ammunition at this show, even if the presentation is somewhat dry and dutiful. This is primarily a two-dimensional exhibition of text and photographic images, neatly designed and laid out across six walk around clusters of wall-sized panels, huddled together in the cavernous semi-cafe space of the Purcell Room.

Distilling a life as storied as Mandela’s into digestible chunks is a daunting task, but it has been done judiciously, combining biography with political context, plus personal episodes and anecdotes. Each set of panels addresses a phase of Mandela’s life and persona: character, comrade, leader, prisoner, negotiator, statesman.

It is a story of rags to riches. The beginning "character" section includes Mandela’s recollection of donning his first pair of trousers—a novelty for a 1920s South African village boy—to go to school. His father simply put him in a pair of his own trousers, cut them at the knee and tied them with string.

From there, the story progresses through Mandela’s political awakening, his organised resistance to the apartheid regime and deepening involvement with the African National Congress, imprisonment for 27 years, and eventual release and election as South Africa’s first black president.

What is this passage mainly about?