Assertion `:-` Haemoglobin can not get saturated with oxygen more than `97%`.
Reason `:-` With a rise in `PO_(2)`, the affinity between `O_(2)` & haemoglobin also increases.

Options

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

Answer

To solve the assertion and reason question, let's break it down step by step.

### Step 1: Analyze the Assertion
The assertion states that "Haemoglobin cannot get saturated with oxygen more than 97%."

- This statement is true. Hemoglobin in red blood cells can carry a maximum of about 97% of oxygen. The remaining oxygen is carried in the plasma, which accounts for about 3%. Therefore, the assertion is correct.

### Step 2: Analyze the Reason
The reason states that "With a rise in PO2, the affinity between O2 and haemoglobin also increases."

- This statement is also true. The partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) refers to the pressure exerted by oxygen in a mixture of gases. As the PO2 increases, hemoglobin's affinity for oxygen increases, allowing it to bind more oxygen molecules. However, this does not mean that hemoglobin can exceed its saturation limit of 97%.

### Step 3: Determine the Relationship
Now, we need to determine if the reason correctly explains the assertion.

- While both statements are true, the reason does not directly explain why hemoglobin cannot be more than 97% saturated. The saturation limit is a physiological characteristic of hemoglobin and is not solely dependent on the affinity for oxygen.

### Conclusion
Both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason does not provide a correct explanation for the assertion. Therefore, the correct answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

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

---