Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage building

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?

Conclusion : Even insignificant departures from safety standards can have severe consequences.

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.

Correct answer because it establishes that all other collapsed buildings had lower safety standards. Thus the only case in which collapse occurs is deviation from the safety norms.

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.

Provides an alternate reason for the collapse thereby weakening the argument.

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.

Is irrelevant to the argument. The argument tries to establish that any deviation from the given safety norms can have severe consequences so it does not matter if office buildings follow more stringent provisions


D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.

The columns were no stronger does not mean they were weaker than the stipulated norms. In fact it means they were as strong as required by the safety norms. Since they were as per the safety norms they probably did not play a role in the collapse. If they did play a role in the collapse it would mean that the designed safety standards were inadequate , which is an alternative reason for the collapse. In that case the argument would be weakened !

E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

Irrelevant