___0395.根据《尾矿库安全技术规程》，尾矿坝堆积坝下游坡面用土石覆盖或用其他方式植被绿化，结合排渗设施每隔（ ）m高差设置排水沟。

___0396.根据《北京市楼宇内生产经营单位安全生产规范》，产权单位与物业单位，产权单位、物业单位与使用单位之间应当（ ），并明确一个产权单位或物业单位对楼宇公共区域、消防设施、重要设施进行管理。

___0397.根据《北京市楼宇内生产经营单位安全生产规范》，（ ）应当保证楼宇及其消防设施、重要设施的技术资料完整。

___0398.根据《北京市楼宇内生产经营单位安全生产规范》，物业单位应当至少（ ）组织一次全面的应急演练，做好应急演练记录。

___0399.（ ）是建设项目职业病防护设施建设的责任主体。

___0400.依据《北京市建设工程施工突发事故应急预案》，造成1亿元以上直接经济损失的建设工程施工突发事故属于（ ）。

___0401.《北京市生产安全事故隐患排查治理办法》规定，生产经营单位应当（ ）向从业人员通报事故隐患排查治理情况。

___0402.《北京市生产安全事故隐患排查治理办法》规定，事故隐患消除后，生产经营单位应当组织（ ）。

___0403.《北京市生产安全事故隐患排查治理办法》规定，生产经营单位的主要负责人对本单位的事故隐患排查治理职责不包括（ ）。

___0404.北京市生产经营单位及其主要负责人，在一年内有（ ）以上违反《北京市生产安全事故隐患排查治理办法》规定行为的，应当依法从重处罚。

___0405.《北京市高处悬吊作业安全生产规定》规定，从事高处悬吊作业的人员应当按照国家有关规定设定的特种作业类别，经专门的安全作业培训，取得相应的（ ）的特种作业操作资格证书后，方可上岗作业。

___0406.《北京市高处悬吊作业安全生产规定》规定，生产经营单位应当对教育培训工作情况进行记录，记录至少保存（ ）。

___0407.北京市生产经营单位（ ）应对由于安全生产所必需的资金投入不足导致的后果承担责任。

___0408.北京市生产经营单位的（ ）之间应当保持规定的安全距离。

___0409.企业应每年至少（ ）对安全生产法律法规、标准规范、规章制度、操作规程的执行情况进行检查评估。

___0410.企业应建立合格相关方的名录和（ ），根据服务作业行为（ ）识别服务行为风险，并采取行之有效的控制措施。

___0411.正确选用劳动防护用品是保证企业员工劳动过程中安全和健康的重要措施之一。企业选用劳动防护用品的前提是（ ）。

___0412.企业应对现场急救用品、设备和防护用品进行（ ）的检维修，（ ）检测其性能，确保其处于正常状态。

___0413.旅馆、商店、公共娱乐场所在营业时间应至少每（ ）h巡查一次。

___0414.凡在坠落高度基准面（ ）m及以上有可能坠落的高处进行作业，均称为高处作业。

___0415.木工机械的操作工和其他有关从业人员工作时，必须严格遵守安全操作规程和安全规章制度，不得用（ ）代替（ ）上机操作。

___0416.散发棉尘、粉尘的生产现场可采用（ ）。

___0417.对经常从事高处作业人员，每年应当定期进行（ ）次身体检查。

___0418.施工现场所使用的电动施工机具的（ ）应与施工现场的（ ）相适应。

___0419.起重机上的电气设备应（ ）检查，运行过程中（ ）进行电气检修工作。

___0420.在易燃、易爆环境中使用的电气设备应采用（ ）。

___0421.化工装置、设施检修过程中，动火作业属于高危险作业。下列作业中，不属于动火作业的是（ ）。

___0422.电动机出厂时间已超过制造厂保证期限，无保证期限的已超过出厂时间（ ）以上应抽芯检查。

___0423.各消防设施的组件和设备应符合设计选型，并应具有出厂（ ）。

___0424.（ ）及以上旅馆建筑应设置建筑设备监控系统。

___0425.设有生产车间、仓库的建筑内，（ ）设置员工集体宿舍。

___0426.下列对用电防火安全管理说法错误的是（ ）。

___0427.供用电工程施工完毕，电气设备应按国家规定（ ）。

___0428.关于电气作业说法不正确的是（ ）。

___0429.电气安全检查中硬件系统“四查”不包括（ ）。

___0430.施工现场临时用电设备在（ ）台及以上时，应编制用电组织设计。

___0431.移动电气设备时，必须经（ ）切断电源并做妥善处理后进行。

___0432.临时用电工程（ ）检查时，（ ）复查接地电阻值和绝缘电阻值。

___0433.配电室的建筑物和构筑物的耐火等级不低于（ ）级。

___0434.县级人民政府要组织乡镇、街道办事处以及城市社区居委会、农村村委会等基层组织和公安派出所，对辖区内学校、宾馆以及城中村、（ ）、城乡结合部的居家、出租房、农民工集中居住区使用（ ）或火炕取暖设施进行检查，督促消除事故隐患。

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___