The correct answer is (C).
Here is a much more conversational way to look at this one. The whole argument falls for a classic math trap: confusing total numbers with percentages.
Think about it like this: If you bake 99% of the world's cakes, you are naturally going to drop the most eggs. It doesn’t mean you are a clumsy baker; you are just doing way more baking than anyone else.
The author of the passage sees that a tiny 14% of facilities are responsible for a whopping 85% of the contaminations. They immediately blame "bad handling practices." But they forgot to ask one crucial question: How much cheese are these facilities actually making?
Why (C) ruins the author's argument
Option (C) drops a bombshell: A tiny 12% group of facilities actually processes 93% of all the cheese in the world.
If the facilities in our scenario are part of this mega-producer group, the whole mystery is solved. If you make 93% of the world's cheese, being involved in just 85% of the contamination incidents is actually a good track record! It proves the high number of incidents is just a result of them doing almost all the work, not because their practices are terrible.
Why the other options fall flat
(A) is too vague: It says they make a "greater total volume," but that isn't enough to clear their name. If they make 30% of the world's cheese but cause 85% of the contaminations, their practices are still terrible. We needed the extreme numbers that (C) provided.
(B) proves the author right: If these places are getting a bunch of hygiene citations, that proves they do have bad practices. We are trying to weaken the author's argument, not help it!
(D) also proves the author right: Aging cheese longer is literally an "aging practice." If leaving it out longer is causing the bacteria, the author was totally right to blame their practices.
(E) is a distraction: Doubling their factory size this year doesn't tell us anything about how much cheese they make compared to the rest of the world.