Assertion`:-` In general, heat of neutralization of `CH_(3)COOH` by `NaOH` is less than heat of neutralization of `H_(2)SO_(4)` by `NaOH`.
Reason`:-` `H_(2)SO_(4)` is a di basic acid while `CH_(3)COOH` is
monobasic acid.

Options

A. If both Assertion & Reason are True & the Reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion.
B. If both Assertion & Reason are True but Reason is not a correct explanation of the Assertiion.
C. If Assertion is True but the Reason is False.
D. If both Assertion & Reason are False

Explanation

To solve the assertion and reason question, we will analyze both statements step by step.

### Step 1: Understanding the Assertion
The assertion states that the heat of neutralization of acetic acid (CH₃COOH) by sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is less than the heat of neutralization of sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) by NaOH.

**Explanation:**
- The heat of neutralization is defined as the heat change that occurs when one equivalent of an acid reacts with one equivalent of a base.
- Acetic acid is a weak acid, while sulfuric acid is a strong acid.
- The heat of neutralization for a strong acid and a strong base is typically around -57.1 kJ/mol, while for a weak acid and a strong base, it is less than this value.

### Step 2: Understanding the Reason
The reason provided states that H₂SO₄ is a dibasic acid, while CH₃COOH is a monobasic acid.

**Explanation:**
- A dibasic acid can donate two protons (H⁺ ions) per molecule, while a monobasic acid can donate only one.
- H₂SO₄ dissociates in two steps:
1. H₂SO₄ → H⁺ + HSO₄⁻
2. HSO₄⁻ → H⁺ + SO₄²⁻
- CH₃COOH dissociates as follows:
- CH₃COOH → CH₃COO⁻ + H⁺
- Therefore, H₂SO₄ has two ionizable protons, while CH₃COOH has only one.

### Step 3: Conclusion
Both the assertion and the reason are true. However, the reason does not provide a correct explanation for the assertion because the heat of neutralization primarily depends on the strength of the acid and base involved rather than the number of ionizable protons.

### Final Answer:
- **Assertion:** True
- **Reason:** True, but it does not explain the assertion correctly.