Statement I: `Ti^(3+)` has higher electronegativity as compared to `Ti^(+)`.
Statement II: The oxidation state of `Tl` in `TlI_3` is not `+3`. 

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 statements provided in the question, we will evaluate each statement one by one.

### Step 1: Evaluate Statement I
**Statement I:** `Ti^(3+)` has higher electronegativity as compared to `Ti^(+)`.

- **Electronegativity** is the tendency of an atom to attract shared electrons in a chemical bond.
- Generally, as the positive charge (oxidation state) of a cation increases, its electronegativity also increases. This is because a higher positive charge means a stronger attraction for electrons.
- In this case, `Ti^(3+)` has a higher positive charge than `Ti^(+)`. Therefore, `Ti^(3+)` will have a higher electronegativity compared to `Ti^(+)`.

**Conclusion for Statement I:** True.

### Step 2: Evaluate Statement II
**Statement II:** The oxidation state of `Tl` in `TlI_3` is not `+3`.

- To determine the oxidation state of `Tl` in `TlI_3`, we can use the known oxidation state of iodine (I), which is typically `-1`.
- In `TlI_3`, there are three iodine atoms contributing a total of `-3` (3 × -1).
- Let the oxidation state of `Tl` be x. The overall charge of the compound is neutral (0), so we can set up the equation:

\[ x + 3(-1) = 0 \]

\[ x - 3 = 0 \]

\[ x = +3 \]

- This calculation shows that the oxidation state of `Tl` in `TlI_3` is indeed `+3`. However, due to the inert pair effect, thallium (Tl) can exhibit a lower oxidation state of `+1` more commonly, especially in heavier elements of group 13.

**Conclusion for Statement II:** The statement is misleading; the oxidation state can be `+3`, but in practice, it is often `+1` due to stability reasons.

### Final Evaluation
- **Statement I** is true.
- **Statement II** is true in the context of stability but incorrect in terms of the calculated oxidation state.

### Overall Conclusion
Both statements are true in their respective contexts, but they are not directly related to each other.

---