Assertion (A): Conserving our soil resources is critical to human survival.…

Concept: In an Assertion–Reason item, first judge whether the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are each true as standalone statements. Only if both are true do you ask a second, independent question: does R state the actual cause or logical ground for A, or is it merely another true fact sitting alongside A without accounting for it?

Application: Assertion (A) is true — soil conservation is critical to human survival because soil sustains food production, regulates water infiltration, and prevents erosion and desertification that would otherwise threaten food and water security. Reason (R) is also true — soil is indeed home to diverse micro-organisms and does contain minerals; both are well-established facts about soil composition. However, R only describes what soil is made of and who lives in it — it does not state the functional link (supporting agriculture, water regulation, erosion control) that is the actual reason conservation is critical to survival. So R does not explain A; it is a separate true fact sitting next to it.

Cross-check: A cleaner test is derivability: does R, read on its own, let you derive A? Knowing only that soil hosts micro-organisms and contains minerals does not by itself tell you why that composition makes conserving soil urgent for human survival — the missing step is exactly the functional link (soil's role in sustaining food production, water regulation, and erosion control) that connects composition to survival. Because R cannot be used to derive A without adding information R itself does not state, R does not serve as the explanation of A, even though both statements are independently true.

• “(A) is true and (R) is false” does not hold — soil's microbial life and mineral content are well-documented facts, not false claims.

• “(A) is false and (R) is true” does not hold either — soil conservation being essential to survival is itself well established, not a false assertion.

Result: both statements are individually correct, but (R) does not explain (A) — so the correct code is “Both (A) and (R) are correct but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).”