Which of these animals kill other animals for their food?a)b)c)d)Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 > Which of these animals kill other animals for...

Join the Discussion on the App

Which of these animals kill other animals for their food?

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: Animals- Food and Shelter- 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Which of these animals kill other animals for their food?a)b)c)d)Corre...

Lion is a flesh eating animal. It kills other animals for food.

Answered by Yashina Kapoor · View profile

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

EVS for Class 1

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 1 exam

Similar Class 1 Doubts

Living things reproduce so that __________.

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. In the given sentence highlighted in the passage, pick the part that has an error in it.

View answer

Living things reproduce so that__________ .

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 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. What is the tone of the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for Class 1View all

Spelling Bee

Mental Maths

General Knowledge for Young Learners

EVS for Class 1

Mathematics Olympiad for Class 1