Assertion–Reason (Two Reasons):\nAssertion (A): The bridge built over the railway track collapsed within a year of its construction.\nReason (R1): The bridge had a faulty design.\nReason (R2): Kickbacks were paid by the contractor to the engineers.

Introduction / Context:
Infrastructure failures are often multi-causal. We assess whether a technical cause (faulty design) and a governance/ethics cause (kickbacks) can both explain an early bridge collapse.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• (A) Catastrophic failure within a year suggests serious defects.
• (R1) Faulty design can directly cause inadequate load paths, underestimated forces, or material/spec errors.
• (R2) Kickbacks may distort procurement, oversight, and quality control, raising failure risk.

Concept / Approach:
In safety-critical systems, collapse likely reflects chains of failure: design, materials, construction, inspection, and governance. A technical flaw (R1) can be compounded by corrupt practices (R2) that reduce scrutiny and quality.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Accident investigations frequently identify both technical and organizational causes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) and (b) ignore the other plausible dimension; (d) rejects plausible reasons; (e) is needlessly hedged where both are clearly relevant.

Common Pitfalls:
Seeking a single cause; overlooking governance failures in technical disasters.

Final Answer:
Option C: Both (R1) and (R2) are reasons.