Which of the following statements best interprets "If it is made of glass, it may break"?

The statement "If it is made of glass, it may break" suggests that there is a possibility of glass breaking due to its inherent properties. This aligns closely with the interpretation provided in choice B, which directly states that glass can break. This interpretation acknowledges the fragility of glass and reinforces the idea that while not all glass will necessarily break, it has the potential to do so under certain conditions.

In contrast, the other interpretations misrepresent or overgeneralize the implications of the original statement. They do not accurately capture the nuances of the potential for breakage inherent in items made of glass. For instance, the notion that if something does not break it is not glass implies a definitive rule that does not exist, while asserting that if it breaks, it must be glass does not accommodate the possibility of other materials also breaking. The statement regarding nothing breaking except glass introduces an incorrect absolute that does not reflect the complex reality of materials and their durability.