Assertion : The only element that dissipates energy in an ac circuit is the resistive element.
Reason : There are no power losses associated with pure capacitances and pure inductances in an ac circuit.

Options

A. If both assertion ans reason are true ans reaason 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 istrue but reason is false.
D. If both assertion and reason are false.

Answer

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

### Step 1: Understand the Assertion
The assertion states that "The only element that dissipates energy in an AC circuit is the resistive element."

- In an AC circuit, resistors (or resistive elements) convert electrical energy into heat, which is a form of energy dissipation. Therefore, this assertion is true.

### Step 2: Understand the Reason
The reason states that "There are no power losses associated with pure capacitances and pure inductances in an AC circuit."

- In pure capacitive and inductive circuits, the energy is alternately stored and released but not dissipated. Hence, there are no power losses in these components. This makes the reason true as well.

### Step 3: Analyze the Relationship Between Assertion and Reason
Now, we need to determine if the reason correctly explains the assertion.

- While both the assertion and the reason are true, the reason does not provide a direct explanation for the assertion. The assertion stands on its own based on the nature of resistors, while the reason explains the behavior of capacitors and inductors but does not clarify why only resistive elements dissipate energy.

### Conclusion
Both the assertion and the reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

Thus, the final answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

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

---