Statement-1 : For any collision, coefficient of restitution `(e` lies between 0 and 1.
Statement-2 : This is because no collision may be `100%` elastic or `100%` inelastic.

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

Answer

To solve the question regarding the statements about the coefficient of restitution, we will analyze each statement step by step.

### Step 1: Understanding the Coefficient of Restitution
The coefficient of restitution (denoted as `e`) is defined as the ratio of the relative velocity of separation to the relative velocity of approach between two colliding bodies. Mathematically, it is expressed as:

\[ e = \frac{\text{Velocity of separation}}{\text{Velocity of approach}} \]

### Step 2: Range of the Coefficient of Restitution
The value of `e` can range from 0 to 1:
- If `e = 1`, the collision is perfectly elastic, meaning that kinetic energy is conserved.
- If `e = 0`, the collision is perfectly inelastic, meaning that the two bodies stick together after the collision.

### Step 3: Analyzing Statement 1
**Statement 1**: "For any collision, the coefficient of restitution `e` lies between 0 and 1."
This statement is true because, by definition, the coefficient of restitution cannot exceed 1 (perfectly elastic collision) or fall below 0 (perfectly inelastic collision).

### Step 4: Analyzing Statement 2
**Statement 2**: "This is because no collision may be `100%` elastic or `100%` inelastic."
This statement is also true. In real-world scenarios, all collisions have some degree of energy loss due to factors like sound, heat, and deformation, making it impossible to achieve a perfectly elastic or perfectly inelastic collision.

### Step 5: Conclusion
Both statements are true. Moreover, Statement 2 provides a valid explanation for Statement 1. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that both statements are true, and Statement 2 correctly explains Statement 1.

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

---