Step 1: Translate reachability into a path statement.
Saying "\(u\) is reachable from \(v\) in \(G\)" means there is a directed path \(v \to \cdots \to u\) using edges of \(G\), each edge pointing forward along the path. A BFS or DFS from \(v\) visits exactly the set of vertices reachable from \(v\), by the assumption given in the question.
Step 2: Understand what reversing edges does to a path.
If there is a directed path from \(v\) to \(u\) in \(G\), then reversing every edge on that path, which is exactly what forming \(G^R\) does to every edge of \(G\), turns it into a directed path from \(u\) to \(v\) in \(G^R\), with the same vertices visited in the opposite order. So: \(u\) reachable from \(v\) in \(G\) if and only if \(v\) reachable from \(u\) in \(G^R\).
Step 3: Check option (D) against this fact.
Option (D) says: if \(u\) is reachable from \(v\) by DFS in \(G\) (i.e. there is a path \(v \to u\) in \(G\)), then \(v\) is reachable from \(u\) by BFS in \(G^R\) (i.e. there is a path \(u \to v\) in \(G^R\)). This is exactly the fact proven in Step 2, so option (D) must always be true, regardless of how \(G\) is shaped, whether it has cycles, or whether it is strongly connected.
Step 4: Rule out the other options with a small counterexample.
Take a simple graph with edges \(v \to a\) and \(b \to v\), so \(a\) is reachable from \(v\) in \(G\), but nothing lies on a path from \(v\) toward \(b\) in \(G\). In \(G^R\) the edges become \(a \to v\) and \(v \to b\), so from \(v\), BFS in \(G^R\) reaches \(b\), not \(a\).
Option (A) fails: reachable sets from the same vertex \(v\) in \(G\) and in \(G^R\) can be entirely different (here \(\{v,a\}\) versus \(\{v,b\}\)), so a vertex reachable in BFS of \(G^R\) from \(v\) need not be reachable via DFS of \(G\) from that same \(v\).
Option (B) fails for the same reason: the reachable set from \(v\) in \(G\) is \(\{v, a\}\), while the reachable set from \(v\) in \(G^R\) is \(\{v, b\}\); these are different sets, so BFS of \(G^R\) from \(v\) does not visit the same vertices as DFS of \(G\) from \(v\).
Option (C) fails too: since the visited sets can differ entirely, there is no meaningful "reverse of the order" relationship between them in general, and even when the sets coincide, BFS and DFS can visit vertices in different orders.
Final Answer:
Option (D) is the statement that must always be true.