Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to check if the assertion is true, if the reason is true, and if the reason properly explains the assertion.
Step 2: Check the Assertion.
A child who already had paralytic poliomyelitis can still be given oral polio vaccine (OPV). Natural infection with one type of poliovirus does not protect against the other two types, so the child stays at risk and should keep getting OPV doses during routine immunization and pulse polio rounds. The assertion is true.
Step 3: Check the Reason.
There are three serotypes of poliovirus (type 1, 2 and 3). Infection or vaccination with one type gives strong immunity only against that type, with very little protection against the other two. This statement about lack of cross-immunity is a correct fact on its own.
Step 4: Check if R explains A.
Even though lack of cross-immunity is true, it is not the main reason OPV is still given to a child who already had polio. The real reason is programmatic: during pulse polio rounds, every child under five gets OPV regardless of past disease or vaccination history, because the goal is to boost gut immunity in the whole community and stop the virus from circulating. So R is a true fact but does not fully explain why A is done.
Step 5: Final Answer.
Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
\[ \boxed{\text{Both A and R true, R not the correct explanation}} \]