GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文六六

　　66. In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries

　　resulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers

　　against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for

　　such injuries is unjustifiable.

　　Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an

　　important and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and

　　safety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level

　　of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials,

　　and so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.

　　However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling.

　　First, the standard is costly. It forces-manufacturers to incur undue expenses for

　　overbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are

　　then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the

　　standard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is

　　distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually

　　caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where

　　the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-

　　hand users receive safe products or adequate instructions and warnings. Finally, where

　　the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the

　　intended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware

　　of, it seems the user. not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.

　　In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation,

　　holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is

　　unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers.