All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Class 1 Exam  >  Class 1 Questions  >  If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 c... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?
  • a)
    Two
  • b)
    Three
  • c)
    Four
  • d)
    Five
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps ...
Number of children in the train:
To determine the number of children in the train, we need to add the number of children with red caps and the number of children without red caps.

Children with red caps:
According to the question, there are 2 children with red caps.

Children without red caps:
According to the question, there are 3 children without red caps.

Total number of children:
To find the total number of children in the train, we add the number of children with red caps (2) and the number of children without red caps (3).

2 + 3 = 5

Therefore, there are five children in the train.

Hence, the correct answer is option 'D'.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps ...
There are 2 + 3 = 5 children in total.
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.
< 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. According to the researchers, the link between good health and better capacity to perform indicates that ?

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.

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?

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?

Top Courses for Class 1View all

Top Courses for Class 1

If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 1 2024 is part of Class 1 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 1 exam syllabus. Information about If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 1 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 1. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 1 Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice If there are 2 children with red caps and 3 children without red caps in the train, how many children are there in the train?a)Twob)Threec)Fourd)FiveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 1 tests.
Explore Courses for Class 1 exam

Top Courses for Class 1

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup