Assertion: `[CoCl_(3)(NH_(3))_(3)]` does not give white precipitate with `AgNO_(3)` solution.
Reason: `[CoCl_(3)(NH_(3))_(3)]` complex is optically inactive.

Options

A. If assertion is true but the reason is false
B. If assertion is false but reason is true
C. If both assertion and reason are true and the reason is the correct explanation of assertion
D. If both assertion and reason are true but reason is not the correct explanation of assertion

Answer

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

### Step 1: Analyze the Assertion
The assertion states that the complex `[CoCl₃(NH₃)₃]` does not give a white precipitate with `AgNO₃` solution.

- **Explanation**: When a coordination compound is formed, the ligands (in this case, Cl⁻ and NH₃) are coordinated to the central metal ion (Co³⁺). The complex `[CoCl₃(NH₃)₃]` has all its chloride ions coordinated to the cobalt ion within the coordination sphere. When `AgNO₃` is added, it typically reacts with free chloride ions in solution to form a white precipitate of `AgCl`. However, since all the chloride ions are part of the coordination complex and not free in solution, no precipitate will form. Therefore, the assertion is correct.

### Step 2: Analyze the Reason
The reason states that the complex `[CoCl₃(NH₃)₃]` is optically inactive.

- **Explanation**: A complex is considered optically inactive if it has a plane of symmetry or a center of symmetry, which means it cannot rotate plane-polarized light. The complex `[CoCl₃(NH₃)₃]` is octahedral and has a symmetrical arrangement of ligands (three Cl⁻ and three NH₃). This symmetry leads to optical inactivity. However, while the reason is true, it does not explain why the complex does not give a white precipitate with `AgNO₃`. The lack of a precipitate is due to the coordination of Cl⁻ ions, not the optical activity of the complex.

### Conclusion
- **Assertion**: Correct
- **Reason**: Correct, but it does not explain the assertion.

### Final Answer
The assertion is correct, the reason is correct, but the reason is not the correct explanation for the assertion.

---