Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council's equipment-storage building collapsed under the weight of last week's heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching roof supports to the building's columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the editorial's argument?

• AThe only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the safety codes.  
• BBecause of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the safety codes.  
• CBecause the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.  
• DThe columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.  
• EBecause the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.