Safety-code

crackgmat007 wrote: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?
A. The 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.
B. Because 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.
C. Because 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.
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes
required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof
collapsed.