The question poses an assertion and reason regarding the nature of carbon oxides. Let's analyze each statement:
- Assertion (A): "Carbon forms two important oxides - \(CO\) and \(CO_2\). \(CO\) is neutral whereas \(CO_2\) is acidic in nature."
- Carbon monoxide (\(CO\)) is known to be neutral because it does not form acidic or basic solutions in water. It is relatively inert in this context.
- Carbon dioxide (\(CO_2\)) is acidic as it can dissolve in water to form carbonic acid (\(H_2CO_3\)), which is a weak acid: \(CO_2 + H_2O \rightarrow H_2CO_3\).
- Thus, the assertion that \(CO\) is neutral and \(CO_2\) is acidic is correct.
- Reason (R): "\(CO_2\) can combine with water in a limited way to form carbonic acid, while \(CO\) is sparingly soluble in water."
- \(CO_2\) combining with water to form carbonic acid directly explains its acidic nature. This is true, as discussed in the assertion.
- Carbon monoxide (\(CO\)) being sparingly soluble in water aligns with its neutral behavior, as it does not react to form acidic or basic compounds.
- The reason correctly describes the behavior of both gases in water, which directly relates to the nature depicted in the assertion.
Therefore, both statements are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). The option "Both \(A\) and \(R\) are correct and \(R\) is the correct explanation of \(A\)" is the correct choice.