The district administration has issued a circular to all farmers under its jurisdiction, advising them not to use pesticides indiscriminately because such use may pollute the ground water. Which of the following can be reasonably assumed from this statement?

Introduction / Context:
This question repeats the same logical pattern about pesticides and ground water. The district administration warns farmers that indiscriminate pesticide use may pollute ground water. You must identify which assumption the administration must be making about the consequences of such pollution, even though that assumption is not stated explicitly.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Official circular: Farmers are advised not to use pesticides indiscriminately because this may pollute ground water.

• Option A: People may stop using ground water if pollution continues.

• Option B: Polluted ground water can cause health problems.

• Option C: Farmers will certainly stop indiscriminate use of pesticides.

• Option D: Most people in the district rely on ground water for drinking.

Concept / Approach:
In statement-and-assumption questions, we ask what must be true in the background for the speaker to be worried or motivated enough to make the statement. The administration is concerned about ground water pollution. Usually such concern is tied to human health and safety, rather than to any minor or cosmetic issue.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The reason mentioned in the circular is that pesticides may pollute ground water. Pollution in itself is neutral; its seriousness depends on the consequences. Step 2: For this to be a strong reason to advise farmers, the administration must assume that polluted ground water is harmful, especially to human health. Step 3: Option B directly states that polluted ground water can cause health problems. This fits perfectly as the underlying concern. Step 4: Option A suggests how people might react in the future, but the administration does not need to assume that people will stop using ground water; it is enough that continuing to use polluted water would be dangerous. Step 5: Option C confuses an intended outcome with an assumption. Authorities hope farmers will change behaviour, but they cannot assume it as a fact while drafting a circular. Step 6: Option D speaks about how many people depend on ground water. Even if dependence is moderate, polluted water can still be dangerous. So heavy dependence is not strictly required as an assumption.

Verification / Alternative check:
If Option B were false and polluted ground water had no health impact, the circular would be pointless. Authorities would not worry about such pollution. By contrast, if A, C or D are false, the circular still makes sense as a preventive measure: any degree of harmful pollution is worth warning against. This shows that B is the only necessary assumption.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A and D deal with possible behaviour or usage patterns that are not required for the warning to be reasonable. Option C assumes guaranteed compliance, which is unrealistic and not necessary for issuing advice. The circular is motivated by risk, not by certainty about behaviour or dependency patterns.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates often mislabel predictions and hopes as assumptions. Remember that assumptions are background facts that must hold for the reasoning to make sense, not outcomes that the speaker desires. Also, do not assume extreme dependence on a resource unless the statement itself points toward that detail.

Final Answer:
The only assumption that must be true for the circular to have force is that polluted ground water can cause health problems, so Option B is implicit.