Statement-1: In present of sunlight `NO_(2)` breaks up into nitric oxide and free oxygen atoms
Statement-2: `NO_(2)` is the one of the source of photochemical smog.

Options

A. (a) Statement-1: is True, Statement-2 is True, Statement-2 is a correct explanantion for Statement-1
B. (b) Statement-1 is True, Statement-2 is True, Statement-2 is NOT a correct explanation for Statement-1
C. (c) Statement:1 is True, Statement -2 is False
D. (d) Statement-1 is False, Statement-2 is True

Answer

To analyze the given statements, we will evaluate each one step by step.

### Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1
**Statement 1:** In the presence of sunlight, \( NO_2 \) breaks up into nitric oxide and free oxygen atoms.

- **Explanation:** When nitrogen dioxide (\( NO_2 \)) is exposed to sunlight, it undergoes photodissociation. This means that the energy from sunlight causes the \( NO_2 \) molecules to break apart into nitric oxide (\( NO \)) and nascent (free) oxygen atoms (\( O \)). The reaction can be represented as:
\[ 2 NO_2 \xrightarrow{h\nu} 2 NO + O \]
- **Conclusion:** This statement is correct.

### Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2
**Statement 2:** \( NO_2 \) is one of the sources of photochemical smog.

- **Explanation:** Photochemical smog is a type of air pollution that occurs when sunlight reacts with nitrogen oxides (like \( NO_2 \)) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The reaction produces secondary pollutants, including ozone (\( O_3 \)), which contributes to the brown haze characteristic of photochemical smog. Therefore, \( NO_2 \) is indeed a precursor to photochemical smog.
- **Conclusion:** This statement is also correct.

### Step 3: Determine the Relationship Between the Statements
- **Analysis:** While both statements are true, Statement 2 does not serve as an explanation for Statement 1. Statement 1 describes a specific chemical reaction that occurs in the presence of sunlight, while Statement 2 discusses the broader context of air pollution and smog formation.
- **Final Conclusion:** Both statements are true, but Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.

### Final Answer
Both statements are true, but Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.

---