Assertion (A) >: Though three important rivers, namely, Narmada, Mahanadi and Son rise from the Amarkantak highlands flowing respectively in direction of west, east and north, no river has originated from here to flow towards south. Reason (R) >: Amarkana

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

(IES/)

Assertion (A): Though three important rivers, namely, Narmada, Mahanadi and Son rise from the Amarkantak highlands flowing respectively in direction of west, east and north, no river has originated from here to flow towards south.
Reason (R): Amarkanatak highlands of Madhya Pradesh stand as a water-divide for drainges of northern and southern areas of the Vindhyas.

question_subject: 

Geography

question_exam: 

IES

stats: 

0,21,16,21,11,2,3

keywords: 

{'madhya pradesh': [16, 0, 16, 28], 'important rivers': [0, 0, 1, 1], 'river': [4, 0, 1, 2], 'amarkanatak': [1, 0, 0, 0], 'amarkantak': [2, 0, 1, 3], 'narmada': [20, 1, 18, 13], 'mahanadi': [18, 2, 10, 16], 'southern areas': [1, 0, 0, 0], 'correct explanatioin': [1, 0, 2, 0], 'water': [65, 15, 80, 129], 'vindhyas': [5, 0, 1, 1], 'north': [0, 0, 1, 0]}

The given statement consists of two parts: an assertion (A) and a reason (R).

Assertion (A) states that three important rivers (Narmada, Mahanadi, and Son) rise from the Amarkantak highlands and flow in different directions, but none of them flows towards the south.

Reason (R) states that the Amarkantak highlands of Madhya Pradesh act as a water-divide for the drainage of the northern and southern areas of the Vindhyas.

Option 1 states that both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A. This means that both the assertion and the reason are individually true and the reason correctly explains why no river originates from the Amarkantak highlands to flow towards the south.

In this case, option 1 is the correct answer because the assertion and the reason together provide a logical and valid explanation for why no river flows towards the south from the Amarkantak highlands.

It should be noted that since both the assertion and the reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion, there is no need for an alert.