The statement in option one asserts that the Battle of Khanua was more decisive and significant than the First Battle of Panipat. This is a subjective statement and could be true depending on one`s perspective on historical events.

The reason given for this statement is that Rana Sanga, the Rajput hero, was a more formidable adversary than Ibrahim Lodi. This is also a personal judgement, but it is generally accepted that Rana Sanga was a powerful and fierce warrior, therefore it can be considered true.

According to the correct answer (option 1), both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and R is indeed the correct explanation for A. This implies that the increased significance and decisiveness of the Battle of Khanua is directly attributed to Rana Sanga`s formidable opposition, thereby making the battle more decisive and significant.

This interpretation would vary if one believes that there were additional or alternative factors that led to the Battle of Khanua being more decisive and significant. Hence, the explanation can be subjective and open to differing viewpoints.