Refer to the exhibit. On R2 there is a summary route for 192.168.1.0/24 with a next hop of R4. Which change will cause R2 to prefer a path through R1 to reach 192.168.1.0/24?

Converting Area 1 to a stub area blocks external LSAs but does not provide backbone connectivity for R1, and a cost change alone without a virtual link still leaves R1 disconnected from the backbone.

A virtual link alone restores backbone reachability but does not change the path metric, so R2 may still prefer R4 if that path has a lower cost.

A virtual link through the backbone is required when R1 lacks direct Area 0 connectivity, because OSPF will not compute intra-area paths across a non-backbone area without it. Decreasing the cost between R1 and R3 to 1 then makes the cumulative metric through R1 lower than the existing path through R4, causing R2 to install the R1 path in its routing table.

Moving the R1-R2 link into Area 0 changes the area topology but does not guarantee a lower metric toward 192.168.1.0/24 than the existing R4 path.