People who live in the neighborhood are oura)grandparentsb)neighborsc)parentsd)none of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 > People who live in the neighborhood are oura)...

Join the Discussion on the App

People who live in the neighborhood are our

a)
grandparents
b)
neighbors
c)
parents
d)
none of these

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: My Neighbourhood- 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

People who live in the neighborhood are oura)grandparentsb)neighborsc)...

Understanding the Term "Neighbors"
In the context of the question, let's break down the options available to identify the correct answer.
Defining Neighbors:
- Neighbors are people who live near you, typically in the same community or area.
- They share a geographical location, which creates a sense of community.
Analyzing the Options:
- a) Grandparents:
- While grandparents may live nearby, they are not defined as neighbors unless they reside in the same neighborhood.
- b) Neighbors:
- This is the correct answer. Neighbors are those who live nearby, making them part of your immediate community.
- c) Parents:
- Parents are family members and do not fit the definition of neighbors. They may live with you but are not considered neighbors.
- d) None of these:
- This option is incorrect since "neighbors" fits the definition.
Conclusion:
- The term "neighbors" specifically refers to those living in the same neighborhood.
- Therefore, the correct answer is option 'B' since it directly relates to individuals living in the same vicinity as you.
Understanding the term "neighbors" helps children recognize their community and the importance of social relationships within it.

Answered by Yashina Kapoor · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: My Neighbourhood- 2
10 Ques | 15 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Class 1 tests

Community Answer

People who live in the neighborhood are oura)grandparentsb)neighborsc)...

People who live in the neighborhood are our neighbors. We can take help of our neighbors in case of any emergency or need. Neighbors have cordial relations with each other.

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. In the context of the passage, the concept of demographic transition as associated with economic development can be understood as ?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions by selecting the correct/most appropriate options:Increased time constraints and the need for convenience in raising children appear to offset parents concerns about the future when it comes to their carbon footprints, according to new research by University of Wyoming economists and a colleague in Sweden.UWs Jason Shogren and Linda Thunstrom, along with Jonas Nordstrom of the Lund University School of Economics and Management, have documented that two-adult households with children emit over 25 percent more carbon dioxide than two-adult households without children. Their research appears April 15 in PLOS One, a journal published by the Public Library of Science."While having children makes people focus more on the future and, presumably, care more about the environment, our study suggests that parenthood does not cause people to become greener," Shogren and Thunstrom say. "In fact, the difference in CO2 emissions between parents and non-parents is substantial, and thats primarily because of increased transportation and food consumption changes." The study involved an analysis of expenditures on goods and services by households in Sweden. The researchers found that parents with children at home consume goods and services that emit CO2 in the areas of food, such as meat, and transportation, such as gasoline, at higher rates than childless households.The economists note that time constraints become more binding, and convenience may become more important when people have children." Parents may need to be in more places in one day," resulting in people driving themselves instead of using public transportation or bicycling, the researchers wrote. "They also need to feed more people. Eating more pre-prepared, red meat carbon-intensive meals may add convenience and save time."The disparity in the carbon footprints of Swedish households with and without children is particularly striking, as concerns about climate change are more pronounced in Sweden than most other developed countries. Most Swedes believe climate change is real and have accepted sizable CO2 taxes, and households with children are subsidized, which helps to alleviate some of the time crunches for parents. Sweden has generous parental leave and subsidized daycare, and parents have a legal right to reduced work hours."If were finding these results in Sweden, its pretty safe to assume that the disparity in carbon footprints between parents and nonparents is even bigger in most other Western countries," Thunstrom says -- though she notes that Sweden also has one of the worlds highest female labour participation rates, which may add to the time constraints of household with children. "Becoming a parent can transform a person -- he or she thinks more about the future and worries about future risks imposed on their children and progeny," Shogren says. "But, while having children might be transformational, our results suggest that parents concerns about climate change do not cause them to be greener than non-parent adults."Q. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning to the word Alleviate as highlighted in the passage.

View answer

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions by selecting the correct/most appropriate options:Increased time constraints and the need for convenience in raising children appear to offset parents concerns about the future when it comes to their carbon footprints, according to new research by University of Wyoming economists and a colleague in Sweden.UWs Jason Shogren and Linda Thunstrom, along with Jonas Nordstrom of the Lund University School of Economics and Management, have documented that two-adult households with children emit over 25 percent more carbon dioxide than two-adult households without children. Their research appears April 15 in PLOS One, a journal published by the Public Library of Science."While having children makes people focus more on the future and, presumably, care more about the environment, our study suggests that parenthood does not cause people to become greener," Shogren and Thunstrom say. "In fact, the difference in CO2 emissions between parents and non-parents is substantial, and thats primarily because of increased transportation and food consumption changes." The study involved an analysis of expenditures on goods and services by households in Sweden. The researchers found that parents with children at home consume goods and services that emit CO2 in the areas of food, such as meat, and transportation, such as gasoline, at higher rates than childless households.The economists note that time constraints become more binding, and convenience may become more important when people have children." Parents may need to be in more places in one day," resulting in people driving themselves instead of using public transportation or bicycling, the researchers wrote. "They also need to feed more people. Eating more pre-prepared, red meat carbon-intensive meals may add convenience and save time."The disparity in the carbon footprints of Swedish households with and without children is particularly striking, as concerns about climate change are more pronounced in Sweden than most other developed countries. Most Swedes believe climate change is real and have accepted sizable CO2 taxes, and households with children are subsidized, which helps to alleviate some of the time crunches for parents. Sweden has generous parental leave and subsidized daycare, and parents have a legal right to reduced work hours."If were finding these results in Sweden, its pretty safe to assume that the disparity in carbon footprints between parents and nonparents is even bigger in most other Western countries," Thunstrom says -- though she notes that Sweden also has one of the worlds highest female labour participation rates, which may add to the time constraints of household with children. "Becoming a parent can transform a person -- he or she thinks more about the future and worries about future risks imposed on their children and progeny," Shogren says. "But, while having children might be transformational, our results suggest that parents concerns about climate change do not cause them to be greener than non-parent adults."Q.Choose the word which is most nearly the SIMILAR in meaning to the word Striking as highlighted in the passage.

View answer

People who live together in the same house make up a ____________.

View answer

We should keep our neighborhood

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