In this task, you're given a statement, and three sentences as choices. Your job is to determine which sentence clearly disagrees with the statement. Indicate your answer as '1', '2', or '3' corresponding to the choice number of the selected sentence.

[EX Q]: Statement: In addition, these central groups were able to achieve some efficiencies and increase consistency in the implementation of the organization's security program by performing tasks centrally that might otherwise be performed by multiple individual business units. Choices:  1. They were unable to achieve efficiencies. 2. The central groups were able to achieve efficiencies. 3. Consistency was increased.
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Statement: It's no good arguing about how it was done. Choices:  1. There's no point in arguing about the logistics. 2. It'd be better for us to argue about how it was done. 3. Arguing is going to waste too much time and we need a solution right now.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Statement: No less vain than the Mughals, the new conquerors all added their own architectural tastes, which were a tribute to India's past but unmistakably British in overall conception, to New Delhi. Choices:  1. When the British conquerors came to New Delhi, they added their own architectural tastes. 2. The Mughals were very displeased by the architectural additions that the British added. 3. The British conquerors never made it all the way to New Delhi.
[EX A]:
3