Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- First pair: 15 : 135.

What’s going on here? 15 × 9 = 135.

- Second pair: 16 : ?

So, using the same pattern: 16 × 9 = 144. I’m looking for 144 in the options, but it’s not there. Let’s move on.

- Third pair: 18 : 189.

18 × 10.5 = 189. That doesn’t work with the previous pattern.

Another look, maybe it’s something else. Let’s check the options for 16:

Option 1, 152: 16 × 9.5 = 152.

Option 2, 121: 16 × 7.5625 = 121. Doesn't fit.

Option 3, 131: 16 × 8.1875 = 131. Nope.

Option 4, 141: 16 × 8.8125 = 141. Also no.

Hang on—let’s check the incremental logic:

- The difference between 135 (from 15) and 15: 135/15 = 9.

- The difference between 189 (from 18) and 18: 189/18 = 10.5.

Maybe it increases by 1.5?

- 9 (for 15),

- 10.5 (for 18),

- So in between (for 16), it should be 9 + 0.75 = 9.75, but none fit that exactly.

But looking closer, none of the options perfectly fit the sequence.

So, if we just focus on the closest logical, option 1 (152) comes from multiplying 16 by 9.5 (which is incremental).

But if this sequence was 15×9, 16×9.5, 18×10.5—it’s not a clean progression. But based on the options, option 1 has the best pattern continuity.

So, Option 1 — 152 is the best fit here.