The candy manufacturer's claim that employee

-Emp. theft = lost revenue
-piece by piece consumption (slow)
C: losses are greatly overstated

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold --- strengthens; if workers are eating the damaged inventory there wouldn't be losses.
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees --- weakens; if employees eat candy that could be sold then there are losses b/c revenue is being lost as the quantities for sale are suppressed. Best so far!
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for. --- passage makes note of slow pace at which candy is eaten. Therefore, even if "select" employees are responsible for all of the damage they're not eating at a fast enough pace. Neither here nor there
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest. --- at busy season less inventory = greater losses. Strengthen!
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company. --- despite being a small portion it could still be a large portion of potential sales. Irrelevant.