A common trap in this kind of question is confusing a conditional statement with its converse or inverse. The sentence only tells us that rain guarantees peacock dancing, so rain is a sufficient condition for dancing, not that dancing only happens because of rain, and not that no rain guarantees no dancing. So any option that reverses the direction, dancing implies raining, or negates both sides in the same direction, no rain implies no dancing, cannot be logically guaranteed. The only statement that must be true, using the rule that \(P \to Q\) always implies \(not\ Q \to not\ P\), is the one saying that if peacocks are not dancing, it cannot be raining. That is exactly option (C), so it is the necessarily true statement.