STATEMENT-1 : In zinc, outermost shell is completely filled
and
STATEMENT-2: Zn does not much resemblance with transition metals.

Options

A. Statement-1 is True , Statement-2 is True , Statement-2 is a correct explanation for Statement-1
B. Statement-1 is True , Statement-2 is True , Statement-2 is NOT a correct explanation for Statement-1
C. Statement-1 is True , Statement-2 is False
D. Statement-1 is False , Statement-2 is True

Answer

To solve the question, we need to analyze both statements regarding zinc (Zn) and determine their validity and relationship.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding Statement 1**:
- **Statement 1**: "In zinc, the outermost shell is completely filled."
- Zinc has an atomic number of 30. Its electronic configuration is:
- 1s² 2s² 2p⁶ 3s² 3p⁶ 4s² 3d¹⁰.
- The outermost shell for zinc is the 4s and 3d orbitals. Both the 4s and 3d orbitals are completely filled (4s² and 3d¹⁰).
- **Conclusion**: Statement 1 is true.

2. **Understanding Statement 2**:
- **Statement 2**: "Zn does not much resemble transition metals."
- Transition metals typically have partially filled d orbitals, which allows them to exhibit variable oxidation states and form complex ions.
- In the case of zinc, the 3d orbital is completely filled (3d¹⁰), which means it does not have the ability to lose electrons from the d orbital to form different oxidation states like other transition metals.
- Therefore, zinc behaves differently from typical transition metals.
- **Conclusion**: Statement 2 is also true.

3. **Analyzing the Relationship Between the Statements**:
- While both statements are true, Statement 1 (the outermost shell being completely filled) does not explain why zinc does not resemble transition metals (Statement 2). The lack of resemblance is due to the filled d orbital, but the statement about the outermost shell being filled does not directly explain this.
- **Conclusion**: Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.

4. **Final Answer**:
- The correct option is that both statements are true, but Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.