The whole day longa)I laughb)I playc)Bothd)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 1 Exam > Class 1 Questions > The whole day longa)I laughb)I playc)Bothd)No...

Join the Discussion on the App

The whole day long

a)
I laugh
b)
I play
c)
Both
d)
None of these

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: A Happy Child - 1

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The whole day longa)I laughb)I playc)Bothd)None of theseCorrect answer...

The Child laughed and played the whole day long and was very happy.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

The whole day longa)I laughb)I playc)Bothd)None of theseCorrect answer...

The correct answer to the question is option C: Both.

Explanation:
Throughout the day, the person does two activities: laughing and playing. Therefore, the correct answer is option C, which states that both activities occur.

Laughter:

Laughter is a natural response to something funny or amusing. It is a way for humans to express joy and happiness. Laughing can occur in various situations, such as when someone tells a joke, watches a funny video, or experiences something humorous. When we laugh, our facial muscles relax, and we produce sounds associated with amusement.

Playing:

Playing is a common activity for children and even adults. It involves engaging in recreational or enjoyable activities, often for the purpose of entertainment or relaxation. Playing can take many forms, such as playing sports, games, or engaging in imaginative play. It allows individuals to have fun, be creative, develop skills, and socialize with others.

Combining laughter and play:

Laughter and play often go hand in hand. When people are engaged in playful activities, they are more likely to experience moments of joy and laughter. Playing with friends, siblings, or even alone can lead to laughter and a sense of happiness. Laughter during play can enhance the overall experience and create positive memories.

Importance of laughter and play:

Both laughter and play are essential for overall well-being. Laughing releases endorphins, which are natural feel-good chemicals that promote a sense of happiness and reduce stress. It also strengthens social bonds and improves communication. Play, on the other hand, promotes cognitive, physical, and emotional development. It allows individuals to explore their creativity, problem-solving skills, and physical abilities.

In conclusion, laughter and play are both significant activities that contribute to our happiness and well-being. The correct answer to the question is option C: Both.

Answered by Yashina Kapoor · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: A Happy Child - 1
10 Ques | 10 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Class 1 tests

Community Answer

The whole day longa)I laughb)I playc)Bothd)None of theseCorrect answer...

Ans is optionC

Share via Whatsapp

Attention Class 1 Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed Class 1 study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in Class 1.

Spelling Bee

Mental Maths

General Knowledge for Young Learners

Mathematics Olympiad for Class 1

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 1 exam

Similar Class 1 Doubts

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. Which of the following can be considered as the appropriate links to establish the stated fact that “good health promotes saving and investment?”

View answer

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.What good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection cannot be maintained and the disease spread is checked. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in the World Economics.Dr. Bloom and Dr. Canning believed that previous attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth.The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious. Two other benefits, however, are less so. One being that good health promotes savings and investments. This is because healthy people both expect to live longer and actually do live longer. The other being that good health—and particularly, expectations about the good health of one’s offspring – promote the so-called demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.To demonstrate that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Phillipines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and 1984. Among the data collected were the records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language, maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organized children whose social circumstances were similar into groups, depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis. They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is known for the other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination would have significant economic benefits.In order to predict those benefits, they turned to vaccination campaign that is just beginning. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) is a collaboration of governments, international organizations, vaccine-makers and charities. It is embarking on a 15-year programme to vaccinate children in 75 of the world’s poorest countries against a range of childhood diseases. The programme is scheduled to cost 13 bn dollars. First, the researchers used data from previous vaccination programmes to estimate both the reduction in mortality and the improvement in the health of the living that might be expected to flow from the new GAVI programme. Then they combined these estimates with existing data about the economic effects of health improvement in these programmes in poor countries, in particular their effects on future income. Using standard accounting methodsthey calculate that the new GAVI programme can be expected to generate an immediate rate of return of 12.4%, rising to 18% by the end of the programme. And that does not include any benefits that might come from the demographic transition. The dispassionate economic case for vaccination, therefore, looks at least as strong as the compassionate medical one. If the figures produced by Dr Bloom, Dr Canning and Mr Weston are right, it truly is an investment for the future.Q. Which of the following could be the reason why researchers feel that their study of relation between vaccination and good health is useful and essential to analyse?I. As the benefits of vaccination last for a long period, people should be aware of the gains they get from living longer.II. The adage “prevention is better than cure” is strongly supported by the cause of vaccination as it becomes the first step towards a disease-free lifeIII. Gains from vaccination cannot be assessed by individuals directly as they are not visible in daily life but economic benefits from good health can be quantified easilyIV. People believe that misfortunes do not befall them but knock their neighbours’ door, and, this may underestimate the benefits of vaccination.

View answer

We should not play with

View answer

(81x power 4/y power -8) whole power 1/4 has simplified value equal to Option is (

View answer

Choose the correct homonym pair.

View answer

Top Courses for Class 1View all

Spelling Bee

Mental Maths

General Knowledge for Young Learners

Mathematics Olympiad for Class 1

English Grammar for Junior Classes