To solve the given question, we need to evaluate the correctness of the statements labeled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R), and then determine whether the Reason (R) correctly explains the Assertion (A).

Assertion (A): Svataḥ prāmāṇyavāda means intrinsic validity of truth.

Reason (R): Parataḥ prāmāṇyavāda means extrinsic validity of truth.

Let us analyze each statement individually:

• Svataḥ prāmāṇyavāda is a concept from Indian philosophy, particularly in the Nyaya and Mimamsa schools, which asserts that the validity of knowledge (prāmāṇya) is intrinsic (svataḥ) to the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) itself. Therefore, the Assertion (A) is correct as it accurately defines Svataḥ prāmāṇyavāda.
• Parataḥ prāmāṇyavāda, on the other hand, is the philosophical view that the validity of a cognized truth is dependent on external factors or verification. This means that the truth needs to be corroborated externally to be considered valid. Hence, the Reason (R) is indeed correct as it accurately describes Parataḥ prāmāṇyavāda.

Now, let's consider if the Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A):

While both concepts deal with the validity of truth, they describe opposing views on how truth is validated. Svataḥ prāmāṇyavāda focuses on intrinsic validity, whereas Parataḥ prāmāṇyavāda emphasizes extrinsic validation. Therefore, although both statements are correct individually, the Reason (R) does not directly explain the Assertion (A) since they represent fundamentally different philosophical stances.

Based on this analysis, the correct answer is:

1. Both (A) and (R) are correct but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).