Statement I: The 3p orbitals are higher in energy as compared to 3s orbital.
Statement II: `(n + I)` for 3p orbitals is lower than that of 3d orbitals. 

Options

A. If both Statement I and Statement II are true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.
B. If both Statement I and Statement II are true but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.
C. If Statement I is true but Statement II is false.
D. If Statement I is false but Statement II is true.

Answer

To analyze the given statements, we can break down the problem step by step.

### Step 1: Understand the Quantum Numbers
- The principal quantum number (n) indicates the energy level of an electron in an atom.
- The azimuthal quantum number (l) defines the shape of the orbital and is associated with the subshell (s, p, d, f).

### Step 2: Determine the Values of n and l for Each Orbital
- For the 3s orbital:
- n = 3
- l = 0 (since s orbitals have l = 0)

- For the 3p orbital:
- n = 3
- l = 1 (since p orbitals have l = 1)

- For the 3d orbital:
- n = 3
- l = 2 (since d orbitals have l = 2)

### Step 3: Calculate n + l for Each Orbital
- For 3s: n + l = 3 + 0 = 3
- For 3p: n + l = 3 + 1 = 4
- For 3d: n + l = 3 + 2 = 5

### Step 4: Compare the Energies Based on n + l Values
- The energy of orbitals increases with increasing (n + l) values.
- Therefore:
- 3s has the lowest energy (n + l = 3)
- 3p has a higher energy than 3s (n + l = 4)
- 3d has the highest energy (n + l = 5)

### Conclusion for Statement I
- Statement I: "The 3p orbitals are higher in energy as compared to 3s orbital."
- This statement is **True**.

### Conclusion for Statement II
- Statement II: "(n + l) for 3p orbitals is lower than that of 3d orbitals."
- We calculated (n + l) for 3p = 4 and for 3d = 5.
- This statement is also **True**.

### Final Evaluation
- Both statements are true, but Statement II does not serve as a correct explanation for Statement I. Therefore, the final conclusion is:
- Statement I is true, Statement II is true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.

---