This is the best reasoning I saw from all the above debates - there is a false impression that the author tried to create, which is there is a shift of visitor appeal from Marine to Juhu because of Marine's epidemic.
However, re-reading the question a few times allow me to realise that is not the case. Juhu's visitorship increased compared to its own record same time last year - does Marine's increase / hold flat / decrease? We don't know. It is also irrelevant. It could be true (which is not stated in the question) that Marine's visitorship also increased and exceeded that of its own same time last year.
Therefore, a testtaker can mistakenly think there is a correlation between Marine's decline (incorrectly assumed) and Juhu's outsized increase - this same mistake was made by the author in drawing their conclusion that Marine's epidemic caused (a shift in visitorship, which in turn caused) Juhu's increase.
Since this argument is already flawed and pretty weak, a 3rd reason that help explains Juhu's increase (again, regardless of its impact on Marine) would be a strong weakener.
Hope this helps anyone who also struggled as I did at first attempt.
saibharatmba
Hi,
Option
D is correct because, it gives the additional reason for
increase in the people wanting to visit the top 3 beaches. Which means the
increase of visitors of Juhu beach might not be due to the decrease in visitors of Marine due to epidemic but due to the attractions.
The trick part in the question is, author never says there is a
decrease in visitors of Marine. He only creates that feeling to us by concluding that the
increase in Juhu is due to epidemic at Marine.