Ron's answer is completely correct, but I'm gonna give some more detail about what I think is the point of the assertion part:
The purpose of the assertion is to make you distinguish between the energy of classical waves and quantum mechanical/particle/electromagnetic waves. The assertion is wrong because the energy of a photon (or the energy of the wavy part of any particle) is proportional to the frequency of the photon as demonstrated in the photoelectric effect and for massive particles, using the de Broglie wavelength. On the other hand, classically, the energy in a mechanical wave, like a sound wave or an earthquake, is proportional to the square amplitude of the wave. The intensity of this classical wave is defined as, $$I_{classical}=\frac{Power}{Area}= \frac{Energy}{time*Area}\propto \frac{A^2}{time*Area}$$where $A$ is the amplitude of the wave, and we simply used the fact that power is defined to be energy per unit time. This basically means the intensity of a mechanical wave is the amount energy being transported by that wave to a specific area per unit time.
This way of thinking about intensity no longer makes sense though when you begin to look at electronic transitions. If the assertion were true, this would mean that a larger number of photons are being emitted in the $2\rightarrow1$ transitions than in the $4\rightarrow2$ transition. This would then mean that when we shoot photons at the hydrogen atom, we should see some larger number of photons being absorbed in $1\rightarrow2$ transition than in the $2\rightarrow4$ transition. This is not what we observe. Rather we see that only specific wavelengths (or frequencies) of light cause the transition to occur, and the number of photons being absorbed in the transition is one.
Hopefully that helps explain why they would put intensity in the assertion. Classically it makes some sense to think that would be correct, but this isn't a mechanical wave, and a distinction must be made there.
