The European Commission has proposed replacing the current unanimity requirement for Council decisions on foreign-policy sanctions with a qualified-majority-voting (QMV) rule. Proponents argue that this change will make the EU a more effective geopolitical actor, because under unanimity a single dissenting member state can indefinitely block a sanctions package that the overwhelming majority supports. Since faster, more decisive sanctions are the primary tool through which the EU projects power internationally, the QMV reform will meaningfully enhance EU geopolitical influence.
Which of the following is an assumption upon which the argument most critically depends?
Choose your answer
Explanation
Negation test applied: if dissenting member states do NOT implement QMV-adopted sanctions with sufficient compliance, then adopting sanctions faster means little — the sanctions would be undermined in practice and the EU's geopolitical effectiveness would not be enhanced. The argument collapses. Choice A is background context about other policy areas, not necessary to this argument. Choice C introduces a specific actor not required by the reasoning. Choice D is too extreme (the argument does not claim influence is measured 'solely' by speed) and is not assumed. Choice E concerns legal authority, which is a separate prerequisite but not the logical bridge the argument relies on — the argument takes the proposal as given and argues about its effect.
