Expanding counter width: can basic counters be cascaded “in parallel” to handle more bits? “Basic counters can be cascaded in parallel to increase the number of data bits that the counter can handle.” Evaluate this statement for correctness and clarity.

Introduction / Context:
When designers need a counter with more bits than a single IC or module provides, they “cascade” multiple counters. However, the phrasing “cascaded in parallel” can be misleading because true width expansion uses series chaining of count stages while maintaining common clocking for synchronous designs.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Goal: increase modulus/bit width beyond a basic counter's capacity.
• Synchronous expansion uses common clock and cascaded carry/enable signals (not Q-to-CLK).
• Asynchronous expansion uses Q-to-CLK chaining (ripple), not parallel connections.

Concept / Approach:
To handle more bits, counters are chained in series so that overflow/carry from a lower-order stage advances the next stage. This is often called cascading, but it is not a parallel connection of independent counters. “Parallel” would imply independent counters operating side-by-side without carry linkage, which does not, by itself, increase a single count width.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify required operation: single counter with more bits.Choose chaining method: ripple (Q→CLK) or synchronous (carry/enable) with a shared clock.Understand that the modules are connected in series logic sense, not in parallel.Therefore, the statement as written is incorrect due to misuse of “in parallel.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Typical 74HC163/193 datasheets show “cascading counters” diagrams using ripple carry output (RCO) feeding the next stage’s enable; the blocks are drawn side-by-side physically but functionally chained in series.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” accepts an imprecise and misleading phrase. Limiting correctness to ripple or synchronous variants still does not justify the term “in parallel.”

Common Pitfalls:
Interpreting physical side-by-side placement on a schematic as “parallel” connectivity; forgetting to distribute a common clock in synchronous chains.

Final Answer:
Incorrect