Explanation
The argument uses the analogy of home insurance to illustrate why funding NEO research is a sound financial decision. Just as home insurance is considered a wise precaution despite the low probability of a home incident, funding NEO research is similarly prudent due to the potential high impact of an asteroid collision, even if such an event is unlikely.
A. (Correct Response) The statement that buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense serves to connect the analogy (buying insurance) to the argument's conclusion (funding NEO research is fiscally sensible). The analogy relies on the shared principle that taking precautions against unlikely but catastrophic events is financially wise.
B. The overall conclusion is not about home insurance itself, but about the funding of NEO research.
C. The statement doesn't define a key term; it illustrates a point by comparison.
D. The statement does not provide a contrast but rather supports the argument by analogy.
E. While the statement does relate to a general principle (taking precautions against significant risks is financially prudent), its role is to support the argument through analogy rather than to be the principle for which support is being provided.
The role of the statement in the argument is to draw an analogy that supports the conclusion that government funding for NEO research is a sound fiscal decision, which aligns with option A.