Ripple counters: Evaluate the statement “A ripple counter is an asynchronous counter.” Select whether this description correctly characterizes ripple counter clocking.

Introduction / Context:
Ripple counters are widely used simple counters where clocking propagates stage-by-stage. This question checks whether calling a ripple counter “asynchronous” is appropriate and why.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ripple counter: first flip-flop is clocked by the external clock; subsequent flip-flops are clocked by outputs of the previous ones.
• Asynchronous counters do not clock all flip-flops simultaneously from a common clock.
• Propagation causes a “ripple” of state changes through the chain.

Concept / Approach:
The hallmark of asynchronous (ripple) counters is that each stage toggles slightly after the preceding stage due to propagation delay. This produces staggered output transitions and limits maximum frequency because later stages see delayed clock edges derived from earlier outputs rather than the system clock itself.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Timing diagrams reveal stair-step transition sequences. Frequency limits are often specified lower than synchronous designs due to accumulated delay.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Incorrect” contradicts standard definitions. Options tying this to bit-width or code type are unrelated to clocking style.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming ripple counters are always acceptable at high speed; their cumulative delay can create decoding glitches and timing hazards without additional filtering or synchronizing logic.

Final Answer:
Correct