Reading comprehension — త్వరిత క్విజ్

For most of the twentieth century, a broken radio or a torn shoe in an Indian town went to a repairer before it went anywhere near a dustbin. Repair was not a hobby but an economy: thousands of small workshops kept goods in use for decades, and their skills passed from one generation to the next. Economists rarely counted this work, because it produced nothing new, yet it quietly saved households large sums and kept materials out of landfills. That economy is now shrinking. Many modern products are sealed shut, glued rather than screwed, or tied to software that only the manufacturer can update. Spare parts are often sold only to authorised service centres, and their prices can approach the cost of a new device. Faced with such barriers, consumers replace rather than repair, and the neighbourhood repairer loses customers. Supporters of a 'right to repair' argue that the law should require manufacturers to sell parts and manuals to anyone, and to design products that can be opened with ordinary tools. Manufacturers reply that sealed designs make devices thinner, more water-resistant and safer, and that untrained repairers can damage batteries or weaken security. Both claims contain some truth. A sealed phone may indeed survive a monsoon better; a phone that cannot be repaired after a fall, however, ends its life early. The real question is not whether repair is good or bad, but who should decide when a product has reached the end of its useful life: the person who owns it, or the company that made it. Which of the following best describes the author's view of the manufacturers' argument?