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 is a statement-and-assumption question from logical reasoning. The administration warns farmers not to use pesticides indiscriminately because it may pollute ground water. Your task is to identify which hidden belief the administration must be taking for granted when issuing this advisory. Assumptions are unstated ideas that must be true for the statement to be meaningful or purposeful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: The district administration advises farmers not to use pesticides indiscriminately, as this may pollute ground water.

• Option A suggests that people may stop using ground water if pollution continues.

• Option B suggests that polluted ground water can cause health problems.

• Option C suggests that farmers will definitely change their behaviour.

• Option D suggests that most people depend on ground water for drinking.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is implicit when, without it, the main statement would lose its force or purpose. Here, the administration is concerned about ground water pollution due to pesticide use. We must ask: why would the administration be concerned about ground water being polluted at all? Typically, such concern is driven by the impact on human health and safety. This gives us a strong clue toward the correct assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Focus on the link "pesticides indiscriminately" → "pollute the ground water". The administration warns against this because pollution of ground water is considered bad. Step 2: For ground water pollution to be a serious issue, the administration must assume that polluted ground water has negative consequences, especially for the health of people who use it. Step 3: Option B directly expresses this: polluted ground water can cause health problems. This explains why the administration is worried enough to issue a circular. Step 4: Option A talks about people stopping the use of ground water; this might or might not happen and is not required for issuing the circular. The administration wants to prevent pollution; it does not depend on people already planning to stop using ground water. Step 5: Option C assumes a definite behavioural change by farmers, but the circular is an attempt to influence behaviour, not a guarantee that they will change. It is an intention, not an assumption. Step 6: Option D suggests heavy dependence on ground water, which may be likely but is not strictly necessary. Even if dependence were moderate, polluted ground water could still be a serious health concern.

Verification / Alternative check:
If Option B were false, meaning polluted ground water did not create health problems, the circular would lack a strong practical reason. Why warn farmers at all if pollution did not hurt people or the environment? On the other hand, even if A, C or D are false, the administration could still sensibly warn farmers because health risks exist. This confirms that only B is essential.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options A and D are about possible reactions or usage patterns of people; they are not necessary for the administration to issue the warning. Option C confuses the hoped-for outcome with the underlying assumption. The administration does not assume farmers will definitely obey; it only recommends that they should.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates think any statement that sounds reasonable is an assumption. Instead, ask: if this were false, would the main statement collapse logically? Only such statements are genuine assumptions. Also, avoid reading extra information into the statement, such as detailed statistics about ground water usage, which are not mentioned.

Final Answer:
The most reasonable and necessary assumption is that polluted ground water can cause health problems, so Option B is implicit.