Assertion (A):
Induced emf ( ) in a coil is given by Faraday's law: , where is the magnetic flux through the coil.
Magnetic flux , where is the magnetic field strength, is the area of the coil, and is the angle between the magnetic field vector and the area vector (which is perpendicular to the plane of the coil). The assertion states the coil's plane is *parallel* to the magnetic field.
If the plane of the coil is parallel to , then the area vector (normal to the plane) is perpendicular to .
So, the angle between and is .
Therefore, .
This means the initial magnetic flux . When the coil expands radially outwards, its area changes. However, if the orientation remains such that its plane is still parallel to (and itself is uniform and constant in direction), then remains .
The flux will remain at all times during expansion.
Since the flux is constantly zero, the rate of change of flux .
Therefore, no emf is induced in the coil ( ).
Assertion (A) is true. Reason (R):
"There is a constant magnet field in the perpendicular (to the plane of the coil) direction."
This statement contradicts the condition given in Assertion (A). Assertion (A) specifies that the coil's plane is *parallel* to the magnetic field, meaning the field is IN the plane of the coil, not perpendicular to it. If the field were perpendicular to the plane of the coil ( ), then flux would be . If changes, , and an emf would be induced.
The Reason (R) describes a scenario different from that in Assertion (A).
If the magnetic field mentioned in (R) is the *actual* field condition for the scenario in (A), then (R) is stating that the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the coil is constant (specifically, it could be a constant zero if the field is entirely parallel to the plane).
However, the wording "a constant magnet field in the perpendicular... direction" usually implies a non-zero field component that is constant.
If (field component perpendicular to coil's plane) is constant (even if zero), and area changes, then flux . Then . If is non-zero and constant, an emf would be induced.
The crucial part for (A) to be true is that .
Reason (R) says there is a constant magnetic field in the perpendicular direction. If this means .
If , then flux is , and . This would induce an EMF, contradicting (A).
So for (A) to be true, must be zero.
If (R) means " is a constant, which could be zero", it's technically true for (A)'s scenario.
But "a constant magnetic field in the perpendicular direction" usually means .
If and constant, then as changes, flux changes, and emf is induced. This scenario contradicts (A)'s conclusion.
Thus, if (A) is true (no emf), it must be that . If (R) is claiming , then (R) is false for the outcome of (A) to hold.
The condition for (A) to be true is that the component of perpendicular to the coil's area is zero. (R) states there is a constant magnetic field in the perpendicular direction. If this means a non-zero constant field, then (R) is false as a condition that would make (A) true. Given the options, and that (A) is true, let's analyze (R).
If (R) is interpreted as "The component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the coil is a constant value ."
If , then . As changes, changes, , so . This contradicts (A).
Thus, for (A) to be true, the field component perpendicular to the plane must be zero.
Reason (R) states "There is a constant magnet field in the perpendicular ... direction". This phrase itself doesn't imply it's zero. It implies some exists and is constant.
If such a (non-zero) existed, (A) would be false. Since we've shown (A) is true (because the problem stated field is parallel to plane, so ), (R) must be describing a condition not met, or a condition that would lead to a different outcome.
Therefore, Reason (R) as a general statement (implying could be non-zero) would lead to an induced EMF if changes.
The premise for (A) is that field is *parallel* to the plane, meaning . "No EMF is induced" is true for this.
Reason (R) says "There is a constant magnetic field in the perpendicular ... direction". If this field were non-zero, EMF would be induced. Thus (R) cannot be the explanation for (A), and indeed if (R) implies a non-zero , then (R) is false for the specific context of (A) where must be zero.
The most direct interpretation:
% Option
(A) Field is parallel to plane ( ). Coil expands. Flux is . . No EMF. (A) is true.
% Option
(R) Claims there is a constant field perpendicular to plane. This can be . If , then expanding coil leads to EMF. If , then (R) just says "the perpendicular component is constant zero".
If we take (R) as "The reason for no EMF is that is constant (and in the scenario of A, this constant is zero)". This is a poor reason.
A better way to interpret "Reason (R)" is as a general statement about physics. Is it true that if there's a constant , no EMF is induced when coil expands? No, that's false. If is constant (and non-zero) and changes, EMF is induced.
So (R) is false as a general statement of physics that would explain (A).
Thus, (A) is true, (R) is false. This matches option (c).