No, Improving the attacking transition will sharpen the attack and get goals from other players as well as a team in a 3 man midfeild itself.
I have no idea why you think a 3-man midfield would improve attack transition talk less of sharpening the attack or even getting goals from other players.
Neither midfield formation has any direct bearing on attacking transition or potency of the attack. Those are more dependent on the quality/type of players and team strategy/style. An extra CM would not create more chances nor would he improve the strikers conversion rates when compared to an AM.
A 3-man midfield gives you an extra man in the middle which help to control the midfield and dominate possession. Unfortunately it leaves you with only 3 attackers who have to bear the bulk of you attack.
A 2-man midfield leaves you potentially under manned in the midfield but affords you 4 attackers upfront.
The choice of which formation is better would depend on where the strength of the squad is. If the team has very potent attacking trio (e.g. barcelona) they can afford to play 3 in the midfield to get better possession and defensive coverage. If the team has superior midfielders, they can afford to play with only 2 and add an extra attacker for a more potent attack. If a team has quality all around (e.g. Madrid), then they can choose either based on the style of players and/or preferences of the manager.
In our case, our strength is in midfield where we have a dominant CM in Pogba. Pairing Pogba with a solid DM is enough o hold our own against most other midfield, and, given our lack of quality and impotency upfront, it makes more sense to commit the extra man upfront to make the attack better. When players are of same quality, 4>3.
Playing a 3-man midfield with our current attacking options is simply making a bad situation worse.
