Assertion–Reason (Two Reasons): Assertion (A): Capital punishment has been abolished in many countries. Reason (R1): Very few serious crimes occur in most countries. Reason (R2): Most religions consider killing humans to be a sin.

Introduction / Context:
The assertion concerns the policy reality that many states have abolished the death penalty. We evaluate whether moral–religious reasoning or crime incidence explains this abolition.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• (A) Abolition exists across numerous jurisdictions.
• (R1) Claims serious crime is rare—factually doubtful as a global explanation.
• (R2) Notes religious/moral opposition to killing humans.

Concept / Approach:
Abolition movements typically cite moral principles (sanctity of life), human-rights norms, risk of wrongful execution, lack of deterrence evidence, and discriminatory application. Low crime rates are not a necessary or general driver.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Abolition correlates more with normative frameworks than with uniform low crime incidence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) privileges an inaccurate empirical claim; (c) wrongly includes (R1); (d) denies a core moral driver; (e) needless hedging.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming policy change implies crime scarcity; ignoring normative/legal factors.

Final Answer:
Option B: Only (R2) is the reason.