This question requires analyzing two statements about the printmaking techniques of etching and woodcut to determine their correctness and relationship.

Assertion (A) Analysis: Etching vs. Woodcut

Assertion (A) states that etching is the opposite of woodcut. Let's examine this:

• Woodcut: This is a relief printing technique. The artist carves away areas of a woodblock, leaving the image raised. Ink is applied to the raised surface, which transfers to the paper.
• Etching: This is an intaglio printing technique. An artist draws on a metal plate coated with a resistant ground, exposing the metal. Acid then 'bites' into these exposed areas, creating grooves or crevices. Ink is applied to the plate and sits within these crevices.

Since woodcut prints from raised areas and etching prints from incised crevices, Assertion (A) is fundamentally correct; they employ opposite methods.

Reason (R) Analysis: Ink Handling in Etching

Reason (R) states: "In etching, the raised portions remain blank while the crevices hold the ink."

• In the etching process, after the plate is inked, the surface is wiped clean.
• The ink resides only in the crevices created by the acid.
• The original raised surface of the plate (where no lines were etched or the ground remains) does not hold ink and thus prints as blank.

This description accurately explains the mechanism of ink retention in etching. Therefore, Reason (R) is correct.

Relationship Between Assertion (A) and Reason (R)

Assertion (A) claims etching and woodcut are opposites. Reason (R) explains *how* etching functions by holding ink in crevices, contrasting with the raised surfaces used in woodcut. This explanation directly supports why they are considered opposites.

Therefore, Reason (R) provides the correct explanation for Assertion (A).

Final Answer Determination

Based on the analysis:

• Assertion (A) is correct.
• Reason (R) is correct.
• Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).

This corresponds to Option 1.