All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has

This argument sets up the press agent as a gatekeeper of information. The ONLY way for reporters to get information about an accident is through the press agent. So, if the press agent tells everyone all of the info, then no reporter can scoop the other reporters (scoop means to report information first).

However, the press agent did NOT tell everyone all of the info. From this, the author concludes that "some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters."

Notice that the argument doesn't tell us what the press agent actually DID tell the reporters. Did he/she treat the reporters fairly and at least give them all the same info? Or did he/she pull one reporter aside and give that reporter more info than the rest of the reporters received? In the first scenario, no reporter could scoop the other reporters, and the author's argument falls apart. In the second scenario, the reporter who received more information CAN scoop the other reporters, just as the author argues.

The question asks us to identify the situation that is consistent with the argument and shows a flaw in the author's reasoning. In other words, which answer choice shows us a possible situation in which some reporter could NOT scoop the other reporters?

Here's (E):

This points out the flaw we identified above. Sure, the press agent didn't give ALL of the reporters ALL of the information. But that doesn't mean that the press agent gave one reporter more information than everyone else. Maybe the press agent just gave ALL of the reporters the same, partial information. Then, all of the reporters would be on the same playing field, and "no reporter [would know] any more about the accident than any other reporter," as stated in (E).

This is entirely consistent with the info in the passage, and would prevent some reporter from scooping the other reporters. That's why (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!