A: Ultrapure metals are obtained by zone refining.
R: Van arkel method is used for purification of titanium

Options

A. If both Assertion & Reason are true and the reason is the correct explanation of the assertion, then mark (1).
B. If both Assertion & Reason are true but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion, then mark (2)
C. If Assertion is true statement but Reason is false, then mark
D. If both Assertion and Reason are false statements, then mark (4)

Answer

To analyze the statements provided in the question, we will break down the assertion and the reason step by step.

### Step 1: Understanding the Assertion
**Assertion (A):** "Ultrapure metals are obtained by zone refining."

- **Explanation:** Zone refining is a technique used to purify metals and semiconductors. In this process, a molten zone is moved along a solid sample, allowing impurities to concentrate in the liquid phase, which is then removed. This method is particularly effective for producing ultra-pure metals such as silicon, germanium, gallium, boron, and indium.

### Step 2: Understanding the Reason
**Reason (R):** "Van Arkel method is used for purification of titanium."

- **Explanation:** The Van Arkel method is a chemical process used to purify certain metals, notably titanium and zirconium. In this method, the impure metal is reacted with iodine to form a volatile metal iodide (e.g., titanium tetraiodide, TiI4). This compound is then decomposed at high temperatures in the presence of a tungsten filament to yield pure titanium and iodine gas.

### Step 3: Evaluating the Relationship Between A and R
- Both the assertion and the reason are true statements. However, the reason provided does not directly explain the assertion. The assertion speaks specifically about the zone refining process for obtaining ultra-pure metals, while the reason discusses a different method (Van Arkel) for purifying titanium.

### Step 4: Conclusion
- Since both statements are true but the reason does not explain the assertion, we conclude that the correct answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation for the assertion.

### Final Answer
- The correct option is: "Both assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion."

---