STATEMENT-1: `CN^(-)` may act as bridging ligand .
and
STATEMENT-2: Lone pair resides on carbon as well as on nitrogen .

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 regarding the statements about the cyanide ion (CN⁻), we will analyze each statement step by step.

### Step 1: Analyze Statement 1
**Statement 1:** "CN⁻ may act as a bridging ligand."

- A bridging ligand is a type of ligand that can connect two or more metal centers in a coordination compound.
- The cyanide ion (CN⁻) has the ability to coordinate to two metal centers through its carbon atom or nitrogen atom.
- Therefore, it is correct to say that CN⁻ can act as a bridging ligand.

**Conclusion for Step 1:** Statement 1 is true.

### Step 2: Analyze Statement 2
**Statement 2:** "Lone pair resides on carbon as well as on nitrogen."

- The cyanide ion (CN⁻) consists of a carbon atom triple-bonded to a nitrogen atom.
- In this structure, the carbon atom carries a negative charge, and the nitrogen atom has a lone pair of electrons.
- The carbon does not have a lone pair in the traditional sense, as it is involved in the triple bond with nitrogen. However, the negative charge on carbon can be thought of as an electron density that could be considered similar to a lone pair.
- The nitrogen atom has a lone pair of electrons that is not involved in bonding.

**Conclusion for Step 2:** Statement 2 is also true, but it does not imply that CN⁻ acts as a bridging ligand.

### Step 3: Determine the Relationship Between the Statements
- While both statements are true, Statement 2 does not provide a correct explanation for Statement 1.
- The ability of CN⁻ to act as a bridging ligand is not solely due to the presence of lone pairs on carbon and nitrogen.

### Final Conclusion
- **Statement 1 is true.**
- **Statement 2 is true.**
- **Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.**

Thus, the correct answer is that both statements are true, but Statement 2 is not a correct explanation for Statement 1.