Assertion: Fluorine exists only in `-1` oxidation state.
Reason: Fluorine has `2s^(2)2p^(5)`configuration.

Options

A. If both the statement are TRUE and STATEMENT -2 is the correct explanation of STATEMENT-1
B. If both the statement are TRUE but STATEMENT-2 is NOT the correct explanation of STATEMENT-1
C. If STATEMENT- is 1 TRUE and STATEMENT-2 is FALSE
D. If STATEMENT-1 is FALSE and STATEMENT-2 is TRUE

Answer

To solve the question, we will analyze both the assertion and the reason provided.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding the Assertion**:
- The assertion states that "Fluorine exists only in -1 oxidation state."
- Fluorine is the most electronegative element and tends to gain one electron to achieve a stable electronic configuration (octet). When it gains one electron, it forms the fluoride ion (F⁻), which has an oxidation state of -1. Therefore, this assertion is **true**.

2. **Understanding the Reason**:
- The reason states that "Fluorine has 2s² 2p⁵ configuration."
- The electronic configuration of fluorine is indeed 1s² 2s² 2p⁵. This configuration indicates that fluorine has seven valence electrons (2 in the 2s subshell and 5 in the 2p subshell), which is one electron short of a complete octet. Thus, this reason is also **true**.

3. **Analyzing the Relationship**:
- While both the assertion and reason are true, we need to determine if the reason correctly explains the assertion.
- The assertion that fluorine exists only in the -1 oxidation state is primarily due to its high electronegativity and its tendency to gain one electron to complete its octet. While the electronic configuration contributes to this behavior, it is not the sole reason. Therefore, the reason does not adequately explain the assertion.

4. **Conclusion**:
- The correct relationship is that both statements are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation for the assertion. Thus, the correct option is that both statements are true, but the second statement is not the correct explanation of the first statement.

### Final Answer:
- Both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation for the assertion.

---