Given below are two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as…

CONCEPT: In an assertion–reason item, judge the truth of each statement independently and then test whether the reason supplies a direct causal mechanism for the assertion. Both statements being true is not enough; the explanatory link must also hold.

In crop ecology, weeds interfere with crops by competing for growing space, light, water, and mineral nutrients. Competition for space does not mean that weeds invariably occupy all available space or leave crops with none.

Application

1. Assertion check: weed control protects crop growth and yield by reducing interference from unwanted plants, so stopping weeds in crop fields is justified.

2. Reason check: weeds compete with crop plants for space, but the statement says they leave no space at all. That absolute claim is stronger than the established fact of competition and is therefore false.

3. Combination check: the assertion is true while the reason, as worded, is false; an explanatory-link test is unnecessary once the reason fails its independent truth check.

Contrast

• “Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)” accepts the reason’s absolute “no space” wording.

• “Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)” also accepts that absolute wording and only disputes the causal link.

• “(A) is true, but (R) is false” preserves the need for weed control while rejecting total space exclusion.

• “(A) is false, but (R) is true” denies the established crop-protection value of weed control.

Cross-check

Standard crop-science descriptions say that weeds grow alongside crops and compete for food, space, and light. “Alongside” and “compete” support the assertion but do not support the stronger claim that crops are left with no space.

Result

Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R), as worded, is false.