Statement-I: When a length of 2.0 mis converted into centimeter, the result is 200cm
Statement-II: The numerical value of a measurement is proportional to reciprocal of the size of unit used.

Options

A. Statement-1 is true and statement -2 is true
B. Statement -1 is true and statement-2 is false
C. Statement-1 is false and statement -2 is true
D. Statement-1 is false and statement -2 is false

Answer

To solve the problem, we need to analyze both statements provided in the question.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

**Step 1: Analyze Statement-I**
- The statement claims that when a length of 2.0 meters is converted into centimeters, the result is 200 cm.
- To convert meters to centimeters, we use the conversion factor: \(1 \text{ meter} = 100 \text{ centimeters}\).
- Therefore, to convert 2.0 meters to centimeters:
\[ 2.0 \text{ m} \times 100 \text{ cm/m} = 200 \text{ cm} \]
- This confirms that Statement-I is true.

**Step 2: Analyze Statement-II**
- The statement claims that the numerical value of a measurement is proportional to the reciprocal of the size of the unit used.
- Let's denote a physical quantity \(q\) as \(q = n \cdot u\), where \(n\) is the numerical value and \(u\) is the unit.
- If we change the unit from a larger unit to a smaller unit, the numerical value \(n\) must increase to keep the physical quantity \(q\) constant.
- For example, if we convert from meters to centimeters (where 1 meter = 100 centimeters), the numerical value increases from 2 to 200.
- This indicates that as the size of the unit decreases (from meters to centimeters), the numerical value increases, which supports the idea that the numerical value is inversely proportional to the size of the unit.
- Therefore, Statement-II is also true.

**Step 3: Conclusion**
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are true.
- Thus, the correct answer is that both statements are correct.

### Final Answer:
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct.

---