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 weakens the editorial's argument? ['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.', 'The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipment-storage building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in drawing up the safety codes.', '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.', 'Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.']