In the context of any country, which one of the following would be considered as part of its social capital?

States that the 'quality of population' depends on literacy and that a literate population is an asset — framing literacy as a population attribute linked to broader societal quality.

A student could combine this with a standard distinction between 'human capital' (skills, education) and 'social capital' (networks, norms) to judge whether literacy more naturally fits human or social capital.

Defines population as a 'human resource' and describes education/skill formation as 'human capital formation', directly associating literacy/education with human capital.

Using this, a student can infer literacy is commonly treated as human capital and thus weigh against classifying it as social capital without additional social-network evidence.

Explicitly calls literacy an important characteristic that enhances skills and productivity of 'human capital'.

A student could use this pattern to argue literacy is primarily an input to individual productive capacity (human capital) and only secondarily related to social capital unless linked to social networks/trust.

Notes literacy provides opportunities for employment and is determined by socio-cultural factors, linking literacy to social conditions and interactions.

A student might extend this to hypothesize that because literacy affects social interaction and status, it could influence social capital (networks/trust), so proportion literate may indirectly affect social capital measures.

Says population composition by residence is an important indicator of social and economic characteristics, illustrating how demographic attributes serve as social indicators.

A student could analogously treat literacy proportion as a demographic indicator that signals social characteristics (and thereby may correlate with social capital), prompting empirical comparison across regions.

Defines tools, machines, buildings as 'fixed capital' and contrasts them with working capital and a separate 'knowledge/enterprise' requirement.

A student could use this rule to treat buildings and machines as physical (fixed) capital and ask whether 'social capital' is usually defined to include physical assets or something else (e.g., social relations or institutions).

Gives a broad economic definition of 'capital' that explicitly lists machinery, tools, shops, factories and office buildings as capital used to produce goods and services.

One could extend this by comparing standard lists of 'capital' with common definitions of 'social capital' (if social capital refers to networks/trust, then buildings would differ).

Defines investment as addition to the stock of physical capital (machines, buildings, roads) — framing these items as 'physical capital' that expand productive capacity.

A student could use the 'physical capital' label to argue these items belong to physical/economic capital categories rather than to social capital, which may be about social resources.

Distinguishes 'social infrastructure' (schools, hospitals, parks) from 'economic/hard infrastructure' (energy, transport) and links social infrastructure to human development.

One could extend this by asking whether 'social capital' maps onto 'social infrastructure' (public goods for human development) or instead denotes social relations; comparing the two meanings helps test whether physical infrastructure equals social capital.

Contrasts physical capital formation with human capital formation, emphasizing that human capital is investments in people (education/health) rather than physical assets.

A student might use this contrast to place buildings/machines clearly in the 'physical capital' box and then check whether 'social capital' is typically categorized with human capital (social relations/skills) or physical capital.

States that population is an asset when the maximum section is in the 15–64 (working) age group and links this to economic and social outcomes (employment, poverty, social problems).

A student could treat a large working-age share as a component of a country's social/economic assets and compare it to typical definitions of social capital (networks, norms) to judge overlap or distinction.

Defines human capital as knowledge, skills and capacities of people and explicitly argues for transforming the working-age population into human capital to gain demographic dividend.

A student could infer that the working-age population becomes an intangible asset (human capital) when trained, then assess whether 'social capital' is analogous or distinct from this human-capital role.

Describes population as a 'human resource' and explains human capital formation through education and health as an intangible productive asset.

A student could use this rule to separate 'size of working-age population' (resource) from 'human capital' (quality), then ask whether social capital would be quality/relations rather than mere size.

Explains age composition helps ascertain workforce and dependent population and shows how proportions change over time (dependency ratios).

A student could use dependency/workforce ratios from a country map or data to judge whether a high working-age share constitutes an asset potentially counted under social capital or should be treated separately.

Gives work participation rates and notes regional variations and links to levels of economic development, implying that working-age numbers alone don't equal productive contribution.

A student could extend this by checking participation/employment data: if many working-age are inactive, the mere size is less likely to serve as 'social capital'.