The European Court of Auditors recently found that approximately 30% of Cohesion Fund projects audited between 2018 and 2022 failed to meet their stated output targets. The Court concluded from this finding that the Commission's project-selection methodology is flawed. The Court's reasoning was that if the selection methodology were sound, it would consistently identify projects with the capacity to deliver their promised outputs.
Which of the following is an assumption the Court's argument requires?
Elige tu respuesta
Explicación
Negation test applied: if the projects failed due to factors that NO selection methodology could have anticipated — such as unforeseen economic shocks, natural disasters, or post-approval regulatory changes — then a high failure rate does not imply that the selection methodology was flawed. The Court's conclusion that the methodology is flawed only follows if the failures were of a kind a good methodology would have prevented. Choice A introduces a comparison with prior periods, which is not necessary — even a new failure rate could indicate a flaw. Choice C about inaccurate applications shifts blame to Member States but is not required by the Court's reasoning; inaccurate applications could themselves be something a sound methodology screens for. Choice D introduces an arbitrary benchmark not used in the argument. Choice E about sole responsibility addresses institutional allocation, not the logical gap in the Court's inference.
