Learners can look at the original article side by side with the substantially abridged versions to get an idea of how professional writers go about their tasks. Everything in a well written article will appear to be essential but it will still be possible to condense it by leaving out examples and explanations.

People of all cultures have worn clothing, garments or dress since prehistoric times. In hot climates, the loose-fitting draped garments, resembling the loincloth or kilt, have been the traditional dress for both males and females. In African and Arab countries this garment appears in the form of a robe. In cold climates people have worn fitted and sewn multi-layered garments that preserve body heat. The cape or cloak has been worn everywhere for protection against the elements.

In Western culture, interaction between the different styles has led to a more varied history of clothing than elsewhere in the world. In the non-Western world, ancient tradition prevailed until the recent expansion of Western industrialized civilization and, with it, Western dress.

In ancient times, the Egyptian and Middle Eastern tradition of dress was in vogue. In time this gave way to the more casual style of the Greeks and Romans. When the Roman Empire came under increasing pressure from invaders in the north and east, Roman habits of dress were abandoned in the West. During the Middle Ages the richer and more sumptuous but stiffer-looking garment styles of Muslims from the Middle East became fashionable in the Mediterranean areas. In the West, however, it was the fitted-and-sewn garment styles of the northern and eastern Europeans that became common.

During the Crusades new fabrics and notions of luxury were discovered and brought back to Europe . These discoveries, together with the Roman tradition in clothing of the Church, had a particularly strong influence on Western aristocratic and ceremonial style of garments, much of which survives in the modern world.

Fashion, until recent centuries, was the concern of the aristocracy. Radical changes in fashion occurred infrequently until the Industrial Revolution. The production of both cloth and clothing by machines made the acquisition of clothing far easier and less expensive for everyone.                      

As a result of the French Revolution, two radical changes in European costume took place—for men, the return of trousers after some 600 years and for women, a conscious reversion to the Greek style. Despite the widespread fear of revolution in other European countries, the French fashion spread and took hold.

No basic change in men's clothing has taken place since the reintroduction of trousers, other than a progressive departure from formality. Since the turn of the 1800s, fit rather than cut has been the mark of fashion in men’s clothes. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution produced a more rapid series of changes in women's clothing than had previously been possible and facilitated the manufacture of fashionable clothes. Wealthy leaders of fashion were forced to keep ahead of the newly rich who copied them. Crinolines gave way to hoops, which were followed by two types of bustles. The corset though remained the one constant for a while in spite of the changing silhouettes, necklines, sleeves, and colours.

Wars and social upheavals brought the last radical changes in the history of Western costume. The successful revolt by women against social and political restrictions was accompanied by the disappearance of the corset and the physical restrictions it inevitably caused. After World War I, almost for the first time in five centuries, the natural shape of women reappeared in clothing.

The inconvenience of working in long dresses dictated the change. As with all sudden changes, the adjustment was extreme. Since that time, almost any experiment in style has been labelled fashion. The close alliance of the garment industry and the advertising business in the last 50 years has, in the opinion of some observers, killed fashion in its traditional sense and replaced it with faddism. The last real attempt at fashion was the New Look of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Style, however, survives, and clothing that is well cut and enhances the appearance of the wearer remains impervious to the whims of fashion.

Adapted from the Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2003 .  

8. Example of a report with sub-headings:

Objective  

To test the influence of food branding on taste preferences of children. 

Design  

Similar food was put either into McDonald’s packaging or plain packaging. Children were asked which food tasted better. 

Setting  

Preschools for low-income children. Participants  Sixty-three children (mean ± SD age, 4.6 ± 0.5 years; range, 3.5-5.4 years). Main Exposure  Branding of fast foods. 

Results 

Moderator analysis found significantly greater effects of branding among children with more television sets in their homes and children who ate food from McDonald's more often. 

Conclusion  

Branding of foods and beverages influences young children's taste perceptions. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00185536. INTRODUCTION 

Explanation

The global childhood obesity epidemic is focusing attention on the effects of food and beverage marketing. The marketing of energy-dense foods and fast food outlets is a "probable" cause of increasing overweight and obesity among the world's children. 
Food marketing to children is widespread. One of the goals of marketing is branding to encourage children to recognize and differentiate particular products and logos. By middle childhood, most children can name multiple brands of child-oriented products.

In the current experiment we asked preschool children to taste identical foods in packaging from McDonald's and in matched but unbranded packaging and to indicate if they tasted the same or if one tasted better. We hypothesized that 3- to 5-year-olds would prefer the taste of foods they perceived to be from McDonald's compared with the same foods without McDonald's branding. 

METHODS 

Participants were 3- to 5-year-old children and their parents. The study was introduced at parent meetings and approved by the Stanford University Panel on Human Subjects in Medical Research. 
Trained research assistants asked participating children if they wanted to play a food tasting game. The foods were (1) one-quarter of a McDonald's hamburger, one partially wrapped in a white McDonald's wrapper showing the McDonald's logo and the other wrapped identically in a matched plain white wrapper of the same size and material.
The order of foods presented and placement of the McDonald's wrapped food on the left or right followed a predetermined random order for each child and each food. 

The null hypothesis was that children would express no preference between the 2 samples of each food or drink (the correct answer). To favor the null hypothesis, children were considered to have no preference when they responded that the 2 samples tasted the same or did not know. Preference for the food identified as McDonald's was coded +1, preference for the unbranded food was coded –1.

RESULTS 

The 63 children performed a total of 304 individual tasting comparisons. The children preferred the tastes of foods and drinks if they thought they were from McDonald’s. Secondary analysis found that children were significantly more likely to prefer the taste of a food or drink if they thought it was from McDonald's for 4 of 5 comparisons. 
Moderator analysis found that children with more television sets in their homes and children who ate food from McDonald's more often were more likely to prefer the taste of foods/drinks if they thought they were from McDonalds.

By the early age of 3 to 5 years, low-income preschool children preferred the tastes of foods and drinks if they thought they were from McDonald’s, demonstrating that brand identity can influence young children's taste perceptions. This was true even for carrots, a food that was not marketed by or available from McDonald’s. These taste preferences emerged despite the fact that 3 of the foods were from McDonald's and only the branding was changed, indicating that the effects were not due to familiarity with the taste or smell of McDonald's food. We used McDonald's branding in this experiment because of its leadership position in fast food advertising and marketing.

Exploratory moderator analysis was performed to identify characteristics that define potentially more or less susceptible groups of participants and to help inform future research. Frequency of eating McDonald's food indicates greater opportunities for brand exposure.

This was a real-world study addressing a straightforward, real-world question: do children prefer the taste of food and drinks if they think they are from McDonald’s? Instead of testing the effects of only advertising, as in past research, this study was designed to try to capture the influences of the entirety of McDonald's brand exposure, including direct and indirect marketing.
Our findings add to past research by demonstrating that specific branding can alter young children's taste preferences. 

These results add evidence to support recommendations to regulate or ban advertising or marketing of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and beverages. This approach has been advocated based on evidence that advertising to young children is inherently unfair because most children younger than 7 to 8 years are unable to understand the persuasive intent of advertising. Our findings also suggest a need for research on marketing in general, and branding in particular, as strategies to promote more healthful taste preferences and food and beverage choices in young children. In this experiment, children preferred the taste of carrots and milk if they thought they were from McDonald’s. This is an opportunity for heavily marketed brands to respond to rising rates of childhood obesity by changing their product offerings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Adapted from the research undertaken by Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Hoover Pavilion, Room N229, Mail Code 5705, 211 Quarry Rd, Stanford, CA 94305-5705 (tom.robinson@stanford.edu ).