PLS HELP ME EXPLAIN THIS!

QAUNGHUY147 · Guest

Hi everybody,there is a passage from OG 10th with just 1 question = explanation that I don't fully understand. My mother tongue is not English,could anyone help me explain this question? Thanks a lot!

Here is the passage:
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the primary economic development strategy of local governments in the United States
was to attract manufacturing industries. Unfortunately, this strategy was usually implemented at another community’s expense: many manufacturing facilities were lured away from their moorings elsewhere through tax incentives and slick promotional efforts. Through the transfer of jobs and related revenues that resulted from this practice, one town’s triumph could become another town’s tragedy.
In the 1980’s the strategy shifted from this zero-sum game to one called “high-technology development,” in which local governments competed to attract newly formed high-technology manufacturing firms. Although this approach was preferable to victimizing other geographical areas by taking their jobs, it also had its shortcomings: high-tech manufacturing firms employ only a specially trained fraction of the manufacturing workforce, and there simply are
not enough high-tech firms to satisfy all geographic areas.
Recently, local governments have increasingly come to recognize the advantages of yet a third strategy: the
promotion of homegrown small businesses. Small indigenous businesses are created by a nearly ubiquitous resource,
local entrepreneurs. With roots in their communities, these individuals are less likely to be enticed away by
incentives offered by another community. Indigenous industry and talent are kept at home, creating an environment
that both provides jobs and fosters further entrepreneurship.

Here is the question:
145. The passage suggests which of the following about the majority of United States manufacturing industries
before the high-technology development era of the 1980’s?
(A) They lost many of their most innovative personnel to small entrepreneurial enterprises.
(B) They experienced a major decline in profits during the 1960’s and 1970’s.
(C) They could provide real economic benefits to the areas in which they were located.
(D) They employed workers who had no specialized skills.
(E) They actively interfered with local entrepreneurial ventures.

Here is the answer of OG
145.
The best answer is C. The final sentence of the first paragraph suggests that, during the 1960’s and
1970’s, a town that attracted a manufacturer thereby achieved a “triumph” (line 9), whereas a town
losing one of these industries suffered a “tragedy” (line 10). It is thus suggested that the majority of these industries prior to the 1980’s could provide real economic benefits to the areas in which
they were located. Choice D can be eliminated, because although the last sentence of the second paragraph suggests that manufacturing industries prior to the 1980’s did not limit their employment to a specially trained fraction of manufacturing workers, it does not suggest that the
majority of these industries employed workers who had no specialized skills. Nothing in the passage suggests any of the statements made in A, B, and E

Here is my Explantion
I don't agree with the explanation from OG because, according to the passage, the strategy for 60s-70s period is "the zero-sum game" and " one town’s triumph could become another town’s tragedy." So , how can we say that the MAJORITY of United States manufacturing industries could provide real economic benefits to the areas in which they were located.?

I'm looking forward to your reply, thanks a lot!

Guest · Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:03 am Post subject:

Nobody helps me? Pls. Did I post in a wrong place?

devesh · Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:21 am Post subject:

Unfortunately, this strategy was usually implemented at another community’s expense: many manufacturing facilities were lured away from their moorings elsewhere through tax incentives and slick promotional efforts. Through the transfer of jobs and related revenues that resulted from this practice, one town’s triumph could become another town’s tragedy.
In the 1980’s the strategy shifted from this zero-sum game to one called “high-technology development,” in which local governments competed to attract newly formed high-technology manufacturing firms. Although this approach was preferable to victimizing other geographical areas by taking their jobs,

145. The passage suggests which of the following about the majority of United States manufacturing industries
before the high-technology development era of the 1980’s?
(A) They lost many of their most innovative personnel to small entrepreneurial enterprises. No where mentioned
(B) They experienced a major decline in profits during the 1960’s and 1970’s. No where mentioned
(C) They could provide real economic benefits to the areas in which they were located.
(D) They employed workers who had no specialized skills. too strong
(E) They actively interfered with local entrepreneurial ventures. not mentioned

i hope it clears ur doubt

jangojess · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: might help u!!!

the term zero-sum is correct...its actually the sum of advantages/profits/loss of all the towns...so if one town triumphed/profited A$ then it has resulted in a tragedy/loss of another town by A$...resulting in total sum as ZERO for both towns....

Now by this process one town is getting benefited too....which is meant in C

archileo73 · Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am Post subject:

The MAJORITY of United States manufacturing industries could provide real economic benefits to the areas in which they were located but not the areas they are not located. The strategy of attracting manufacturing industries was nationally zero sum but locally beneficial!