Which of the following might have kept people living in rural areas rather than relocating to the mid-century cities?

a/voting power within the state
b/better transportation
c/increased job opportunities
d/new business development

Better transport is the logical explanation for rural people instead of moving to mid-century metropolises.

Explanation:

In a large city, living expenses are greater than remote costs. Although there is some reality to these declarations, sure, there are many more opportunities in areas in which the population is twice as high, and you'll pay for that incentive in more ways than just one.

There are six factors that staying in a desirable area might be a cheaper option than you assume:

answer: both considered peasants valued members of society.

explanation: the ancient chinese and indian empires were large asian empires that had the same problems with other big empires, they had to work hard and sometimes fight in order to keep them united, they both relied heavily on their capacity to trade and to send strange and rare items to europe, and had the father as the head of the house hold in both societies, but they didn´t considered pleasants as valued members of their society, they were the bottom of the social pyramid in both of their societies.