Statement-I : All the ores are mineral
Statement-II : Most of the ores contains metals in combined state

Options

A. Statement-I is True, Statement-II is True, Statement-II is a correct explanation for Statement-I
B. Statement-I is True, Statement-II is True, Statement-II is NOT a
correct explanation for Statement-I
C. Statement-I is True, Statement-II is False.
D. Statement-I is False, Statement-II is True.

Answer

To analyze the statements given in the question, we will break down each statement and evaluate its validity.

### Step 1: Understanding the Terms
- **Minerals**: These are naturally occurring substances that have a definite chemical composition and structure. Minerals can contain metals in both native (uncombined) and combined states (as compounds).
- **Ores**: Ores are specific types of minerals from which metals can be economically extracted. They usually contain metals in a combined state.

### Step 2: Evaluating Statement-I
- **Statement-I**: "All the ores are minerals."
- This statement is **true**. Every ore is indeed a mineral because ores are specific minerals that contain enough metal to be economically viable for extraction.

### Step 3: Evaluating Statement-II
- **Statement-II**: "Most of the ores contain metals in combined state."
- This statement is also **true**. Most ores contain metals in the form of compounds (e.g., oxides, sulfides, carbonates). For example, iron is found in ores like Fe2O3 (iron oxide), FeS2 (iron sulfide), and FeCO3 (iron carbonate), which are all combined states.

### Step 4: Analyzing the Relationship Between the Statements
- While both statements are true, they do not provide a direct explanation for each other. Statement-I discusses the classification of ores as minerals, while Statement-II discusses the state of metals in ores.

### Conclusion
- **Final Evaluation**:
- Statement-I is true.
- Statement-II is true.
- However, Statement-II is not a correct explanation for Statement-I.

Based on this analysis, the answer is that both statements are true, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I.