The candy manufacturer's claim that employee

The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

Which of the following if true, most weakens the argument above?

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold

If the workers eat only those candies that wouldn't be sold, then the argument is strengthened. After all, the company doesn't stand to make any profit from candies it would have thrown away.

(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees

The argument says that the idea it is losing money to candy-gobbling employees is overstated. Well, if all of the candy eaten by employees represents lost sales, then the case isn't overstated. The company is losing money to this "theft." Therefore (B) weakens the argument.

(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.

Doesn't really address whether the claim is overstated.

(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest

Well imagine that most of this candy is defective, i.e., it would not have sold anyways. Regardless of what season it is, the argument would not be weakened.

(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

This seems to match up with the part of the argument that says the claim is overstated.