Here the argument is that with the new system, the city will achieve its desired target of reducing its morning traffic congestion by 20%.
A) There is no mention of timeline at all for the target to be achieved, but there is also no mention of the timeline that the new system will take to exhibit this change. However, the phrase implies that this change will be pretty immediate as the system is synced across all lights and will start working instantly. Therefore, not a strong option.
B) Even if the system faces failures or software errors in 'implementation' phase, these will eventually be worked around and the system will start working at optimal capacity. Option does not hold up.
Since the phrase does not indicate that this reduction needs to happen immediately, this does not weaken the argument.
C) Increased traffic can be a problem in achieving this goal. Assume the new system reduces congestion by 25%, but due to less congestion, 15% more vehicles see it as a viable option to drive in downtown core. This immediately negates the benefits of the system and can stop the city from achieving its target! We hold onto this option.
D) Actually, the phrase literally states that the new system will increase the number of vehicles that pass through major intersections by 25%. Which is a comparison with how many vehicles could pass under the old system. Invalid option.
E) In no form does the phrase position this problem as a monetary problem. It is a traffic and congestion issue, hence attaching a monetary lens introduces a new variant that is not stated in any form. Invalid option.
Option that holds up the best- C
Answer- C