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  >  Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Bri... Start Learning for Free
Which of these is a healthy food?
  • a)
    Chips
  • b)
    Brinjal
  • c)
    Chocolate
  • d)
    Noodles
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Class 1 doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesC...
Brinjal (eggplant) is rich in nutrients and helps in digestion. Brinjal is known as the "king of vegetables."
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesC...
Understanding Healthy Foods
When it comes to identifying healthy foods, it's essential to consider their nutritional value and benefits. In this case, option 'B', Brinjal, is the healthiest choice among the options provided.
What is Brinjal?
- Brinjal, also known as eggplant or aubergine, is a nutritious vegetable.
- It is low in calories and contains no fat.
Nutritional Benefits of Brinjal
- Rich in Nutrients: Brinjal is packed with vitamins such as Vitamin C, K, and several B vitamins.
- High in Antioxidants: It contains antioxidants like nasunin, which helps protect cells from damage.
- Good for Digestion: The fiber content in brinjal aids in proper digestion and helps maintain gut health.
Comparison with Other Options
- Chips: Usually high in unhealthy fats and salt, making them less nutritious.
- Chocolate: Often high in sugar and calories, which can contribute to health issues if consumed excessively.
- Noodles: Typically made from refined flour, which can lead to spikes in blood sugar levels.
Conclusion
In conclusion, brinjal stands out as a healthy food choice due to its low calorie count, high nutrient density, and various health benefits. Incorporating brinjal into your diet can help promote overall health and well-being. Always aim to choose whole, nutrient-rich foods for a balanced diet!
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 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. 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. Which of the following can be considered as the appropriate links to establish the stated fact that “good health promotes saving and investment?”

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

Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 1 2025 is part of Class 1 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 1 exam syllabus. Information about Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 1 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Which of these is a healthy food?a)Chipsb)Brinjalc)Chocolated)NoodlesCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup