Statement–Assumption — Notice at park entrance: “Pets are not allowed in the park premises.” Choose the implicit assumption.

Introduction / Context:
Prohibitory notices are posted to regulate behavior that is plausible among intended users. If no visitors had pets or were ever likely to bring them, the notice would be pointless.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Text of the notice: a prohibition on pets within the park premises.
• Purpose: prevent pet entry to maintain hygiene, safety, or wildlife protection.

Concept / Approach:
The minimal assumption for such a notice to make sense is that some visitors do have pets and might bring them unless told otherwise. Claims about fines, uniqueness among parks, or number of entrances are not necessary to justify the presence of the notice.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Uniqueness (B) and fines (C) add extra facts; entrances (D) are irrelevant to the rule’s rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing what might also be true (e.g., fines exist) with what must be assumed.

Final Answer:
At least some visitors have pets.