Would you expect there to be more services in a more remote village than a less remote one?

This is for my geography coursework, and I'm not entirely sure which is the right answer.

By services, I mean post offices, village shops, pubs, telephone boxes, etc.

On average yes. There is a maximum distance people will travel to obtain services. When a larger place is nearby they will tend to combine purposes and obtain all or most services in the larger place. If there is no other place nearby, people will patronize the supplier in their own village. The idea of thresholds is crucial here; are there enough people to meet the minimum demand. In a village close to larger places, there is probably not a threshold because people will not seek the service in their own small village. If everybody in the village is a customer, on the other hand, the threshold can be met.

Lots of empirical evidence to show this is true. Isolated villages in Arctic Canada, for example, contain far more services than similar sized places in southern areas close to larger towns and cities.

What do you mean by services?

If services are things usually found in American homes, like cable and utilities, then the answer is there would not be more services. Economies of remote villages cannot afford to have the services sent out to them in a major way. Those who can pay for services in the villages usually pay for themselves individually to be setup. Still those services would not be as expansive as those found in the city.

the more remote the fewer services.