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

The roof of 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.

Conclusion: This collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.

We need to strengthen the conclusion. So we need something that says that yes, because standards were not met (nails were smaller) that is why the roof collapsed.

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.

The only other buildings that collapsed were those that did not meet our current standards either. So the buildings that met current standards exactly did not collapse. This does strengthen the connect between meeting standards exactly and not collapsing.

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.

If the weight of the snow was more than what was allowed for in the codes, it seems that the nails may not have been the problem or only problem. Whether we can blame the nails then, we cannot say. Hence it certainly doesn't strengthen our argument. In fact, it makes us question it. Perhaps using smaller nails was actually irrelevant and had the weight of the snow been within limits, the roof would not have fallen. We cannot be sure but we are sure of one thing - this option does not strengthen that the nails were the culprit.

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.

We are talking about how the building did not adhere to what it was required to adhere to. Whether what it was required to adhere to was sufficient or not is not the question.

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

Irrelevant. The strength of the columns in either case (stronger than codes or no stronger than codes) is irrelevant. The roof nails are the ones that did not meet the code and the roof is the one that collapsed. The columns were as per code and anyway did not collapse. So the argument had nothing to do with the strength of the columns. It is all about the roof only and whether the nails used in the roof were responsible for its collapse or not.
EatMyDosa

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 what was in the building.

Answer (A)