Reading Comprehension

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

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

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!