In the question statement, the news reporter has concluded that there will be no cabinet reshuffle, as the high level meeting did not take place. But from - the information given it cannot be inferred that the high level meeting is a necessary condition for the cabinet reshuffle to take place. In other words, a reshuffle could also happen without a high level meeting. This is the central flaw in the news reporter’s argument. This is best expressed in option (c). Option (a) is incorrect, what it describes is the reverse of what has happened in the argument. Option (b) is incorrect, as we cannot assume that the news reporter's conclusion is based on popular perception. More importantly it brings in information, which is outside the scope of the argument. Option (d) is incorrect, as it does not explain the logical flaw. There is nothing wrong in considering the high level meeting a desirable precursor, but it is not the necessary precursor.