Question

Assertion (A): According to Gause, two species competing for the same limiting resource cannot coexist indefinitely in the same habitat. Reason (R): Competing species promote resource partitioning.

• A. Both (A) and (R) are true. (R) is correct explanation for (A)
• B. Both (A) and (R) are true. (R) is not correct explanation for (A)
• C. (A) is true. But (R) is false
• D. (A) is false. But (R) is true

Hint:

Competitive Exclusion = One winner. Resource Partitioning = Coexistence through division of resources.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: How to read this question.
We check the assertion, then the reason, and then decide if the reason is the proper explanation of the assertion.

Step 2: Check the assertion.
The assertion is Gause's competitive exclusion principle. It says two species fighting for the same limited resource cannot live together forever in the same place. One will slowly outcompete and remove the other. This is a true statement.

Step 3: Check the reason.
The reason says competing species promote resource partitioning. This is also true. To avoid being wiped out, competing species often start using slightly different resources or niches, and this sharing is called resource partitioning.

Step 4: Do they connect properly.
Here is the key point. Resource partitioning is a way species manage to coexist, which is actually the opposite of exclusion. So it does not explain why exclusion happens. The reason is true but it is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

Step 5: Pick the option.
Both statements are true, but the reason does not explain the assertion. That matches option 2.

Step 6: Conclusion.
Therefore the correct answer is "Both (A) and (R) are true. (R) is not correct explanation for (A)". \[ \boxed{\text{Both true, R not explanation}} \]