Assertion (A) `Cu^(2+)` iodide is not known.
Reason (R ) `Cu^(2+)` oxidises `I^(-)` to iodine.

Options

A. Both assertion and reason are true, and reason is the correct explanation of the assertion.
B. Both assertion and reason are true but reason is not the correct explanation of assertion.
C. Assertion is not true but reason is true.
D. Both assertion and reason are false.

Explanation

To solve the question regarding the assertion and reason concerning `Cu^(2+)` iodide, we will analyze both statements step by step.

### Step 1: Understand the Assertion
The assertion states that `Cu^(2+)` iodide is not known.

- **Explanation**: `Cu^(2+)` (copper in the +2 oxidation state) is typically not stable when combined with iodide ions (`I^(-)`). This is due to the fact that copper(II) tends to form more stable complexes with other anions, such as chloride (`Cl^(-)`), rather than with iodide.

### Step 2: Understand the Reason
The reason provided is that `Cu^(2+)` oxidizes `I^(-)` to iodine.

- **Explanation**: When `Cu^(2+)` is introduced to iodide ions, it can indeed oxidize the iodide ions (`I^(-)`) to molecular iodine (`I2`). This reaction indicates that `Cu^(2+)` acts as an oxidizing agent, which means it cannot remain in the form of `Cu^(2+)` iodide because it will convert `I^(-)` to `I2` and itself get reduced to `Cu^(+)`.

### Step 3: Conclusion
Both the assertion and the reason are correct:
- The assertion is correct because `Cu^(2+)` iodide is not stable and does not exist.
- The reason is also correct because `Cu^(2+)` does oxidize `I^(-)` to iodine, which explains why `Cu^(2+)` iodide is not formed.

### Final Answer
Both the assertion and the reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion.