Statement-1: For reynold number `R_(e)gt2000` the flow of fluid is turbulent.
Statement-2: Inertial forces are dominant compared to the viscous forces at such high reynold numbers.

Options

A. If both assertion and reason are true and reason is the correct explanation of assertion
B. If both assertion and reason are true but reason is not the correct explanation of assertion
C. If assertion is true but reason is false
D. If both assertion and reason are false

Explanation

To solve the problem, we need to analyze both statements regarding the Reynolds number and its implications on fluid flow.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding Reynolds Number (Re)**:
The Reynolds number (Re) is a dimensionless quantity used to predict flow patterns in different fluid flow situations. It is defined as:
\[ R_e = \frac{\rho v d}{\mu} \]
where:
- \( \rho \) = density of the fluid
- \( v \) = velocity of the fluid
- \( d \) = characteristic length (typically diameter of the pipe)
- \( \mu \) = dynamic viscosity of the fluid

2. **Analyzing Statement 1**:
Statement 1 claims that for \( R_e > 2000 \), the flow of fluid is turbulent. This is a well-established criterion in fluid mechanics. When the Reynolds number exceeds 2000, the flow transitions from laminar to turbulent. Therefore, Statement 1 is **correct**.

3. **Analyzing Statement 2**:
Statement 2 states that inertial forces are dominant compared to viscous forces at high Reynolds numbers. The Reynolds number is essentially a ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces:
\[ R_e = \frac{\text{Inertial Forces}}{\text{Viscous Forces}} \]
When \( R_e \) is greater than 2000, it indicates that inertial forces significantly outweigh viscous forces, leading to turbulent flow. Thus, Statement 2 is also **correct**.

4. **Conclusion**:
Since both statements are correct and Statement 2 provides a valid explanation for Statement 1, we conclude that both statements are true and Statement 2 explains Statement 1.

### Final Answer:
Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct, and Statement 2 is the correct explanation for Statement 1.