Assertion : `LiAlH_(4)` is more reactive and less selctive than `NaBH_(4)` as a reducing agent.
Reason : `LiAlH_(4)` reduces both aldehydic group and double bond in conjugate position while `NaBH_(4)` does not.

Options

A. If both assertion and reason are correct and reason is correct explanation for assertion.
B. If both assertion and reason are correct and reason is not correct explanation for assertion.
C. If assertion is correct but reason is incorrect.
D. If assertion as well as reason are both incorrect.

Explanation

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

### Step 1: Understand the Assertion
The assertion states that "LiAlH₄ is more reactive and less selective than NaBH₄ as a reducing agent."

- **Reactivity**: LiAlH₄ (Lithium Aluminium Hydride) is indeed a stronger reducing agent compared to NaBH₄ (Sodium Borohydride). It can reduce a wider range of functional groups, including aldehydes, ketones, esters, carboxylic acids, and amides.
- **Selectivity**: LiAlH₄ is less selective because it can reduce multiple types of functional groups, while NaBH₄ is more selective and primarily reduces aldehydes and ketones.

### Step 2: Understand the Reason
The reason states that "LiAlH₄ reduces both aldehydic group and double bond in conjugate position while NaBH₄ does not."

- **Reduction of Aldehydes**: Both LiAlH₄ and NaBH₄ can reduce aldehydes to alcohols.
- **Reduction of Double Bonds**: The statement in the reason is incorrect. Neither LiAlH₄ nor NaBH₄ reduces isolated double bonds. However, LiAlH₄ can reduce conjugated systems under certain conditions, but this is not a general characteristic that distinguishes it from NaBH₄.

### Step 3: Conclusion
- The assertion is correct: LiAlH₄ is indeed more reactive and less selective than NaBH₄.
- The reason is incorrect: Both reducing agents do not reduce double bonds in conjugation with carbonyl groups.

### Final Answer
The correct answer is that the assertion is true, but the reason is false.