A : Kirchhoff's Current law is applicable at any junction isor node in the circuit.
R : Kirchhoff's laws are general in nature .

Options

A. If both Assertion & Reason are true and the reason is the correct explanation of the assertion , then mark
B. If both Assertion & Reason are true but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion then mark.
C. If Assertion is ture statement but Reason is false , then mark
D. If both Assertion and Reason are false statements then mark.

Answer

To analyze the given statements about Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL) and its general nature, we will break down the assertion (A) and the reason (R) step by step.

### Step 1: Understanding the Assertion (A)
The assertion states that "Kirchhoff's Current Law is applicable at any junction or node in the circuit."

**Explanation**:
- KCL states that the total current entering a junction must equal the total current leaving that junction. This is based on the principle of conservation of charge, which implies that charge cannot accumulate at a junction.
- Therefore, if you have multiple currents entering and leaving a node, the algebraic sum of these currents will be zero.

### Step 2: Understanding the Reason (R)
The reason states that "Kirchhoff's laws are general in nature."

**Explanation**:
- Kirchhoff's laws, including both KCL and Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL), are indeed general principles that apply to all electrical circuits.
- KCL applies to any junction in a circuit, while KVL applies to any closed loop in a circuit, both based on fundamental conservation laws (charge and energy, respectively).

### Step 3: Evaluating the Relationship between A and R
Now we need to determine if the reason (R) correctly explains the assertion (A).

**Analysis**:
- While both statements are true, the reason does not specifically explain why KCL is applicable at any junction. The assertion is about the applicability of KCL at junctions, while the reason speaks to the general nature of Kirchhoff's laws.
- The general nature of the laws does not provide a direct explanation for the specific applicability of KCL at junctions.

### Conclusion
Both the assertion (A) and the reason (R) are correct, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion. Therefore, the answer is option 2.

---