阅读理解 The realm of product liability is one that has always put legal scholars and practitioners at odds. Viewed by some as genuine efforts to protect the public from dangerous goods and others as an excuse for dirty lawyers to sue rich companies, the matter has yet to be resolved. Product liability, and its implications for disgruntled consumers wishing to sue the makers of what they buy, continues to be debated.
Those who argue that current product liability laws are positive assert that without such laws, manufacturers would be free to do as they please without regard for the safety of the consumers who buy their products. As a result, they argue, shoddy merchandise would emerge, with every possible corner cut in order to lower costs, at the expense of quality. Not only would the shoddy merchandise be a rip-off, however, but the products could likely be harmful as well. Proponents of this point of view hail the new wave of warning labels and increased quality assurance that has resulted from recent product liability legislation, confident in their conviction that it has made the American marketplace a safer place to shop.
Opponents of the current status-quo, however, cite the overwhelming amount of litigation that has taken place as a result of stricter product liability. A moderate approach is advised by this group, between the necessary safeguards that would prevent abuse of the system by the companies and the excessive consumer-protection laws that allow producers to be sued at the drop of a hat. These people argue that greed and the alluring possibility of easy money lead unscrupulous buyers to look for any excuse to bring minor grievances to court, hoping for a million-dollar outcome.
As the situation stands now, the former camp is getting its way, reflecting society's priority of safety over economics. Recent lobbying by producers has begun to shift the tide, however. As abuse of product liability laws continues and grows, courts are beginning to note the trend and take appropriate measures, casting a keener eye on such cases so as to distinguish between frivolous cases and more serious claims. In regard to the future of product liability legislation and its relation to our ever increasingly litigious society, only time will tell.

单选题 1.It is stated that consumers who bring product liability problems to litigation______.

单选题 2.Manufacturers in the text tend to______.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】属信息推断题。相关信息在第二二段第一句：如果没有这样的法令，制造商就会随心所欲地做任何他们想做的事，而对是否能够保证购买他们产品的消费者的安全毫不在意。由此可推知，选项D符合此意(制造商会因此受到约束，在生产产品时会加倍小心)。选项A、B与本句的内容不符；选项C在原文中没有推理依据。

单选题 3.Those who favor less strict product liability laws believe that______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】属信息归纳题。相关信息在第三段第二句：他们建议采用折中的手段，既采取必要的预防措施防止公司滥用该制度伤害公众利益，又防止消费者保护法走向极端……。由此可知，选项B正确(需要修改法律以更好地满足消费者和生产者的需求)。选项D与本句的内容不符。选项A是第二段中提到的支持产品责任法者的观点。选项C与第三段最后一句意思不符(一些无耻的消费者利欲熏心，用控告制造商来换取暴利)。

单选题 4.The author's attitude toward the issue seems to be______.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】属态度推断题。文章第一段最后一句引出主题：产品责任和它所代表的内涵——消费者不满意他们所购买的产品、要对产品制造商提出控告——仍然是人们争论的焦点。接下来第二、三段分别阐述了两种相反的观点态度；最后一段介绍了目前的现状，而最后一句指出：至于说产品责任法的未来以及它与我们所生活的充斥着越来越多的诉讼案的社会之间的关系，我们只能拭目以待，让时间告诉我们答案。由此可见，作者并没有表明自己的态度，只是进行了客观分析。因此，选项C正确。