← Razonamiento verbalDifícil
The European Parliament's Committee on Energy has argued that the EU's 2030 offshore wind capacity target can be achieved without new state-aid exemptions for grid-connection infrastructure. The committee's reasoning is that existing competition-law frameworks already permit Member States to fund shared offshore grid corridors as services of general economic interest (SGEI), and that this pathway has been successfully used for onshore interconnectors. Therefore, the offshore wind sector does not require a bespoke state-aid carve-out.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the committee's argument?
Elige tu respuesta
Explicación
The committee's argument rests on the transferability of the SGEI pathway from onshore to offshore contexts. Choice B directly corroborates this by showing that real-world use of SGEI for offshore corridors has been no more burdensome than onshore cases, confirming the analogy. Choice A is irrelevant—current capacity share does not bear on whether the legal pathway is adequate. Choice C is the 'opposite': developers preferring a bespoke regime undermines confidence in the SGEI route. Choice D weakens by introducing regulatory risk to the SGEI pathway. Choice E is a 'close miss': it raises a potential complexity but does not address whether SGEI designation is legally or administratively adequate.