Question

Direction - For the below Assertion [As] and Reason [R], choose the correct alternative-
Assertion [As] : It was not possible to "linger on the expedition".
Reason [R] : Once the tide turned, it came in rapidly and could cut off the return path.

• A. Both [As] and [R] are true, and [R] is the correct explanation of [As].
• B. Both [As] and [R] are true, but [R] is not the correct explanation of [As].
• C. [As] is true, but [R] is false.
• D. [As] is false, but [R] is true.

Hint:

To verify assertion-reason questions smoothly, read the assertion, add the word "because" at the end, and then read the reason. If the resulting combined sentence makes logical sense as a cause-and-effect scenario, select the option stating it is the correct explanation.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Concept: This question tests reading comprehension, logical deduction, and cause-and-effect relationships. To determine the correct answer, we must first assess whether the statements are factually true on their own, and then determine if there is a direct logical connection linking the cause (Reason) to the effect (Assertion).

Step 1: Evaluate the validity of Assertion [As].
The assertion states that it was impossible to delay or "linger on the expedition." This describes an explicit constraint or limitation on time during a journey, implying that lingering would introduce danger. This statement functions as a true situational premise in coastal expeditions.

Step 2: Evaluate the validity of Reason [R].
The reason mentions that when a tide changes direction, it rushes in with immense speed, which can completely submerge low-lying areas and trap travelers by blocking their escape route back to safety. This is a well-documented physical hazard of coastal geography, making the statement factually true.

Step 3: Analyze the logical link between [As] and [R].
Let us link the two statements using the explanatory conjunction 'because': \[ \text{"It was not possible to linger on the expedition \textbf{because} once the tide turned, } \] it came in rapidly and could cut off the return path." The sentence flows logically. The high risk of being cut off by a fast-moving tide perfectly explains why travelers could not afford to waste time or linger. Therefore, both statements are true, and the reason serves as a clear, valid explanation for the assertion. This corresponds to option (A).