This question asks us to evaluate two statements about James Prinsep's historical contributions and determine their truthfulness and explanatory relationship.

Evaluating Statement I: Prinsep's Script Decipherment

• Statement I asserts that James Prinsep, an East India Company officer, successfully deciphered the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts.
• Historical records confirm that Prinsep played a crucial role in deciphering these ancient scripts, which were indeed prevalent in early Indian inscriptions and coins.
• Therefore, Statement I is true.

Evaluating Statement II: The King 'Piyadassi'

• Statement II states that James Prinsep discovered that these scripts frequently mentioned a king named 'Piyadassi', meaning 'pleasant to behold'.
• Prinsep's work did indeed lead to the identification of the name Piyadassi in inscriptions, which was later equated with Emperor Ashoka. The meaning 'pleasant to behold' is also accurate.
• Therefore, Statement II is true.

Assessing the Explanatory Relationship

• Statement I focuses on the act of deciphering scripts (Brahmi and Kharosthi).
• Statement II focuses on a specific finding derived *after* decipherment – the mention of King Piyadassi.
• While the discovery of 'Piyadassi' was a significant outcome of Prinsep's decipherment work, it does not *explain* the process or the ability to decipher the scripts themselves. Deciphering the scripts enabled the reading of names like Piyadassi, not the other way around.
• Thus, Statement II, although true, is not the correct explanation for Statement I.

Conclusion

Both statements are factually correct on their own. However, Statement II does not provide the reason or cause for Statement I.

The correct option is that both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.