The popular view is that Ozone layer's depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can it be held responsible for destroying ozone.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the author depends?

A) It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone.
B) Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons.
C) The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies
D) The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.
E) The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released.

Please provide detailed explanations.