Passage Summary: A legislator argues that because humanities are cheap to run and sciences are expensive, the humanities actually help pay for the sciences, so cutting them to save money is a mistake.

Conclusion: Universities should not reduce the size of humanities departments when they are experiencing financial difficulties.

Reasoning: Humanities departments are cheaper to operate than science departments, meaning they generate a profit that effectively pays for the more expensive science departments.

Analysis: To identify the role of the specific claim, we first need to map out the argument's structure. The main conclusion is the final sentence regarding budget cuts. The claim that humanities cost less is a premise used to support the intermediate conclusion that humanities departments 'bring in more money than they spend.' This intermediate conclusion then supports the idea that humanities subsidize sciences. Therefore, the claim in question is a foundational premise that initiates the logical chain leading to the final recommendation.