In my view, it's a matter of the point of reference.
Well, look at it this way: zero is both a starting point and an absolute point: as a starting point, one may count up or down from there so in strict numerical terms, zero is neither positive or negative, it is a null integer; such as having 3 apples and owing 5-- that leaves you with a deficit of 2 or -2, thus the need for negative numbers, but as an absolute point in the realm of math theory, zero itself is something. It HAS to be something otherwise you could not state nor define it. Now, the first thought you have is that how can nothing be something? But look at zero as a "quantity state," a placeholder-- zero is the possibility of something as you cannot have anything without zero. Zero creates the
possibility of something because it is a natural, cardinal number, for if you cannot have zero, you cannot have something . . . like an empty bucket--- with an empty bucket you may have an empty bucket or you have the possibility of adding something to it.
But you can't TAKE away anything from zero. There is nothing less than zero in absolute terms in the field of natural numbers, you cannot have less than an empty bucket--- once empty, you cannot have MORE empty. So with zero comes the possibility of a positive gain, so in theory, zero as a natural number carries with it the connotation of a sum gain and implies the potential for a positive, that is why the whole number line and natural line START with zero and zero can be thought of as implying or being intrinsically "positive."
This is all very abstract, purely math theory, so like I said, I'd dispute the question as "it depends," on the framework of the question being better framed as the field of available solutions. The difficulty here is that the creator of the test outsmarted themselves by not really defining the quality state of "zero" IMO.
