Assertion : Sky is maximum red in morning
Reason : Smallest wavelength scatter maximum

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.

Answer

To solve the question, we need to analyze both the assertion and the reason provided.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding the Assertion**:
- The assertion states that the sky appears maximum red in the morning. This phenomenon occurs due to the scattering of light in the atmosphere. During sunrise, the sunlight passes through a larger thickness of the Earth's atmosphere compared to when the sun is overhead.

2. **Understanding Rayleigh Scattering**:
- The reason for the red appearance of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering, which states that shorter wavelengths of light (like blue and violet) scatter more than longer wavelengths (like red). However, during sunrise and sunset, the blue and violet light is scattered out of the line of sight, leaving the longer wavelengths (red, orange) to dominate the sky's color.

3. **Analyzing the Reason**:
- The reason states that the smallest wavelength scatters the most. This is true; shorter wavelengths (blue and violet) scatter more effectively than longer wavelengths (red). However, in the context of the morning sky, the longer wavelengths are what we observe because they are less scattered and can reach our eyes.

4. **Conclusion**:
- Both the assertion and the reason are true. The assertion is correct because the sky does appear red in the morning, and the reason is also correct as it explains the scattering phenomenon. However, the reason does not directly explain the assertion since it focuses on the scattering of shorter wavelengths rather than the visibility of longer wavelengths during sunrise.

### Final Answer:
- Both the assertion and the reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation for the assertion.