According to the author, relocating government agencies has not always been a success for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
Started 2 months ago by Shashank in
Explanatory Answer
Note the double negative in the question. It’s easier to pick the answer to this question by completing the sentence with the answer option and checking if the statement is true or false.
Relocating government agencies has not always been a success because of a rise in pollution levels and congestion in the new locations. The passage does not mention a rise in pollution levels in smaller cities. So, this option is not supported by the passage.
Relocating government agencies has not always been a success because of the difficulty of attracting talented, well-skilled people in more remote areas. This is true. (see paragraph 4 : ‘agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.’)
Relocating government agencies has not always been a success because of increased avenues of corruption away from the capital city. Again, this is true. (see last paragraph)
Relocating government agencies has not always been a success because of high staff losses, as people may not be prepared to move to smaller towns. This is also true. (see paragraph 4: ‘swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%.’)
So, options 2, 3 and 4 are true, while 1 is not.
-
No one is replied to this question yet. Be first to reply!
