Solution
The correct answer is option 1. The passage draws an explicit analogy between fish schooling and contact-tracing apps: small local adjustments by individuals feed back on one another and produce an unintended collective pattern. For the suggestion that apps could raise risky interactions to hold, it must be true that people's local movement decisions are interdependent and can aggregate into large-scale outcomes. Option 1 captures precisely this necessary assumption — that individuals respond to observed infections and to each other's behaviour, and that these responses interact to generate emergent patterns that can undercut the goal of reducing risk. This mirrors the passage's first paragraph, where local avoidance of the infected paradoxically produces higher collective contact between infected and susceptible people.
Option 2 is wrong (reversed). If most users uninstall the app quickly and no systematic bias in routing remains, then there is no mechanism by which the app could generate a harmful collective pattern. This assumption would neutralise the very effect the passage describes rather than support it.
Option 3 is wrong (out of scope). Claiming that urban traffic is uniform and that personal choices are irrelevant directly contradicts the interdependence the passage requires. If movement is perfectly predictable and independent of social signals, individual behavioural adjustments cannot cascade into unintended aggregate patterns.
Option 4 is wrong (keyword trap). It latches onto the technology of the app but shifts the issue to data accuracy, which the passage never raises. Perfect precision of alerts is not what drives the harmful collective effect; rather, it is the feedback among individual responses. Even with imperfect data, interdependent local reactions could still produce the problematic pattern the passage describes.