XXII. In this moment, the developed countries — I point to them, because these countries have already burnt massive amounts of carbon dioxide for energy to build their economies — are faced with a real energy conundrum. On the one hand, developed countries are battered because of a fast-heating planet; temperatures have gone through the roof; droughts and extreme weather events are hitting them as well. On the other hand, ordinary people in these countries are worried, not just because of climate change but because of the lack of energy to heat their homes this coming winter. In the US, gas prices went up in summer, so much so that people travelled less and consumption of fuel dropped. But now prices are down and it is business as usual.
The fact is that this energy disruption has provided the much-needed vault to the beleaguered fossil fuel industry. Governments are asking this industry to supply more. Europe has baptised natural gas, a fossil fuel less polluting than coal but still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, as “clean”. The US has passed a climate bill, which will invest in renewable energy but conditional to increased spends on oil and gas and the opening up of millions of hectares of federal land for drilling. Through this bill the US will do more than ever before to build a manufacturing base for renewable energy, particularly solar. Europe, even in this desperate scramble for gas, is working to ramp up its investment in renewable power. So, it is the worst of times. It could be the best of times, but there are some caveats. One, this renewed interest in fossil fuels must remain temporary and transient. Given the nature of economies, once the investment has been made in this new infrastructure or the supply of fossil fuel has increased from new oil and gas discoveries, it will be difficult to wean off. Two, these countries should not be entitled to more use of fossil fuels in our world of shrunk carbon budgets. They need to reduce emissions drastically and leave whatever little carbon budget space that is remaining to poorer countries to use, thereby satisfying such poorer countries’ demands. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “New energy conundrum”, by Sunita Narain, DownToEarth]

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s argument about why travel and fuel consumption in the US reduced in summer?

The correct answer is: Strict lockdowns were imposed in the US in summer, because of which people travelled less; further, temperatures were moderate, and this meant people had to use less fuel to heat or warm their homes.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Analyze the Author's Argument:
According to the passage, the author argues that during the summer in the US, gas/fuel prices went up significantly, which directly caused people to travel less and reduced overall fuel consumption ("In the US, gas prices went up in summer, so much so that people travelled less and consumption of fuel dropped"). The cause assumed by the author for reduced travel and fuel consumption is the high price of gas.

2. Identify What Weakens the Argument:
To weaken an argument asserting a cause-and-effect relationship (High Prices ⇒ Reduced Travel and Fuel Consumption), an alternative cause or explanation must be provided for why travel and fuel consumption dropped, showing that high gas prices were not the true primary reason.

3. Evaluate the Options:

• Option 1: "People like to travel regardless of season, and the only thing that would prevent them from travelling at any time of the year would be high costs."
This option supports (strengthens) the author's claim that high costs/prices prevented travel.

• Option 2: "Airlines raised ticket prices as a response to increase in fuel prices, and therefore, fewer people were able to buy air tickets to travel."
This option reinforces the idea that high fuel prices led to higher travel costs and thus reduced travel, supporting the passage's premise.

• Option 3: "Strict lockdowns were imposed in the US in summer, because of which people travelled less; further, temperatures were moderate, and this meant people had to use less fuel to heat or warm their homes."
This provides an explicit alternative reason (lockdowns and moderate temperatures) for the reduction in travel and fuel consumption, independent of high gas prices. Therefore, it directly weakens the author's argument that high gas prices were the cause.

• Option 4: "Widespread geopolitical tensions in the first half of the year meant that fuel prices were at an all-time high in summer..."
This merely explains why fuel prices were high, which does not weaken the claim about why travel and consumption dropped.

Conclusion:
Option 3 provides an alternative explanation (strict lockdowns and moderate weather) for the decrease in travel and fuel usage, thereby most effectively weakening the author's causal claim.