(A) according to classical electromagnetic theory an accelerated particle continuously emits radiation.
(R) according to classical theory, the proposed path of an electron in Rutherford atom model will be parabolic.

Options

A. if both assertion and reason are true and reason 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 is true but reason is false.
D. if both assertion and reason are false.

Explanation

To analyze the statements given in the question, we will break down the assertion and the reason, and evaluate their truthfulness and relationship.

### Step 1: Analyze the Assertion
**Assertion (A):** According to classical electromagnetic theory, an accelerated particle continuously emits radiation.

- **Explanation:** In classical electromagnetic theory, it is indeed true that an accelerated charge (like an electron) emits electromagnetic radiation. This is due to the changing electric and magnetic fields produced by the acceleration of the charge. Therefore, the assertion is **true**.

### Step 2: Analyze the Reason
**Reason (R):** According to classical theory, the proposed path of an electron in Rutherford atom model will be parabolic.

- **Explanation:** The Rutherford model of the atom describes electrons moving in circular orbits around the nucleus due to the electrostatic force of attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons. The paths of these electrons are not parabolic; they are circular. Therefore, the reason is **false**.

### Step 3: Determine the Relationship
Now, we need to determine if the reason is a correct explanation of the assertion.

- Since the assertion is true and the reason is false, the reason does not correctly explain the assertion.

### Conclusion
- The assertion is true, but the reason is false. Therefore, the correct answer is that the assertion is true, and the reason is false.

### Final Answer
- (A) is true; (R) is false; the reason is not a correct explanation of the assertion.

---