The Fire Sprinkler Initiative, which advocates the use of sprinkler systems, makes many statistics available on its website. For example, the site explains that a person has a 99.45 percent risk of surviving a house fire with a smoke alarm and a 98.87 percent chance without it. A reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the use of smoke alarms does not merit their cost.

We need an assumption when negates can break the conclusion. Or simply something which supports the conclusion.
The conclusion drawn by the writer depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Using sprinkler systems makes more sense than using smoke alarms does.--Wrong- Even though we negate the statement, it does not breaks the conclusion.

(B) A small percentage of deaths due to not using alarms is acceptable.-Death is not discussed in the argument- Wrong

(C) A decrease of just under 1% could translate to many avoidable deaths.--Wrong- Opposite of what we want, This weakens the conclusion directly.

(D) Sprinkler and smoke detection systems offer negligible lifesaving benefits.-Out of scope- Wrong

(E) The difference is not statistically significant because of a 1% error rate.- Correct-When this statement if negated i.e. if the 1% has a statistically significant value, then it could be of a benefit to the alarm system and a could break our argument.

Is the Answer E?

Do let me know if the reasoning for the above question is incorrect! I'd be happy to hear.

Hope this helps!