Statement I: NO is three-electron donor

Statement II: The anti-bonding electron in NO is very much susceptible to donate extra to its lone pair

If both Statement I and statement II are correct and statement II is the correct explanation of statement I

The answer is (1) Both Statement I and statement II are correct and statement II is the correct explanation of statement I.

Statement I is correct because NO is a three-electron donor. This is because the nitrogen atom in NO has a lone pair of electrons, but it also has a pi antibonding electron. The pi antibonding electron is delocalized over the nitrogen and oxygen atoms, which means that it is not as tightly bound to the nitrogen atom as the lone pair electron. This makes the pi antibonding electron more susceptible to being donated to another atom.

Statement II is also correct because the pi antibonding electron in NO is very much susceptible to donate extra to its lone pair. This is because the pi antibonding electron is in a higher energy orbital than the lone pair electron. The anti-bonding electron is therefore more reactive and more likely to be donated to another atom.

The reason why Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I is because the pi antibonding electron is what makes NO a three-electron donor. If the pi antibonding electron were not delocalized over the nitrogen and oxygen atoms, then it would be more tightly bound to the nitrogen atom and less likely to be donated to another atom.