Assertion :- In human, maximum digestion ocrurs in duodenum.
Reason:- Ampula of vater opens in duodenum.

Options

A. If both assertion and reason are true and reason is the correct explanation of assertion.
B. If both assertion and reason are true but reason is not the correct explanation of assertion.
C. If assertion is true but reason is false.
D. If both assertion and reason are false.

Answer

**Step-by-Step Solution:**

1. **Understanding the Assertion:**
- The assertion states that "In humans, maximum digestion occurs in the duodenum." This is true. The duodenum is the first part of the small intestine and is where the majority of chemical digestion takes place. It receives digestive enzymes from the pancreas and bile from the liver, which are crucial for breaking down food.

**Hint:** Recall the role of the duodenum in the digestive process and the substances it receives.

2. **Understanding the Reason:**
- The reason states that "The ampulla of Vater opens in the duodenum." This is also true. The ampulla of Vater, also known as the hepatopancreatic ampulla, is the site where the bile duct and the pancreatic duct converge and empty their contents into the duodenum.

**Hint:** Consider the anatomical location of the ampulla of Vater and its function in digestion.

3. **Analyzing the Relationship:**
- While both the assertion and the reason are true, the reason does not adequately explain why maximum digestion occurs in the duodenum. The assertion focuses on the overall digestive process and the role of the duodenum, while the reason merely states a fact about the ampulla of Vater's location.

**Hint:** Think about whether the reason directly supports the assertion or if it is merely a related fact.

4. **Conclusion:**
- Since both the assertion and the reason are true, but the reason does not explain the assertion, the correct answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

**Final Answer:** Option 2: Both assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not correctly explaining the assertion.