# FILE NAME: 00000576.soc
# TITLE: Should the government make it harder for people to sue companies over product liability? [54ecab6f38fe2c2c16a91239f17a3cff]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, they should not make it harder to sue companies over product liability because too often the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a set system in place for all companies of all sizes to adhere to, and that it is currently difficult to sue companies over product liability due to the excessive amount of legal fees that consumers are required to pay, which may cause the company to remain unpunished.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life. The opinion was clearly that of participant 3. How did this happen? And is this what is intended? The issue is not so much the manipulation of the algorithm, but the inevitable complexities of word-smithing opinions to reduce them to single phrases. What happens when two participants are against an issue, one is unsure, and one is for it? This can be an issue in the use of Likert scales too. It is often possible to ask an opinion of a participant with greater detail to better understand what they are thinking. For example, we might ask them to rank the issues in order of priority, or we might ask them to rank a list of solutions in order of effectiveness.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current process is quite arduous and we believe that this can be simplified to allow for more claims to be made against companies and for more consumers to be able to have a higher quality of life. It would also increase transparency between consumers and producers and lead to greater understanding between the two parties.
2: 1,2,4,3
1: 3,1,2,4
1: 1,4,2,3
1: 2,1,4,3