企业发生的下列事项中，一般需采用追溯调整法进行会计处理的有___。

下列项目中不属于重组事项的是___。

甲公司2017年12月实施了一项关闭C产品生产线的重组计划，重组计划预计发生下列支出：因辞退员工将支付补偿款600万元；因撤销厂房租赁合同将支付违约金40万元；因将用于C产品生产的固定资产等转移至仓库将发生运输费4万元；因对留用员工进行培训将发生支出2万元；因推广新款A产品将发生广告费用1600万元；因处置用于C产品生产的固定资产将发生减值损失200万元。2015年12月31日，甲公司应确认的预计负债金额为___万元。

下列关于会计估计及其变更的表述中，正确的是___。

下列各项，属于会计政策变更并采用追溯调整法进行会计处理的是___。

2013年12月1日，甲公司购入管理部门使用的设备一台，原价为3 000万元，预计使用年限为10年，预计净残值为200万元，采用直线法计提折旧，与税法规定一致。2018年1月1日考虑到技术进步因素，将原预计的使用年限改为8年，净残值改为120万元，该公司的所得税税率为25%。则对于上述会计估计变更不正确的表述是___。

采用追溯调整法计算出会计政策变更的累积影响数，应当___。

2018年2月1日，某上市公司发现所使用的甲设备技术革新和淘汰速度加快，决定从该月起将设备预计折旧年限由原来的10年改为6年，当时公司2017年年报尚未报出，该经济事项应属于___。

A公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月30日。A公司2018年1月6日向乙公司销售一批商品并确认收入。2018年2月20日，乙公司因产品质量原因将上述商品退回。A公司对此项退货业务正确的处理方法是___。

甲企业拥有的一台自2016年1月1日开始计提折旧的设备，其原值为27 500元，预计使用年限为5年，预计净残值为500元，采用年数总和法计提折旧。从2018年起，该企业将该固定资产的折旧方法改为平均年限法，设备的预计使用年限由5年改为4年，设备的预计净残值由500元改为200元。该设备2018年的折旧额为___元。

下列发生于资产负债表日后期间的事项中，属于调整事项的有___。

某企业一台设备从2016年1月1日开始计提折旧，其原值为111 000元，预计使用年限为5年，预计净残值为1 000元，采用双倍余额递减法计提折旧。从2018年起，该企业将该固定资产的折旧方法改为平均年限法，设备的预计使用年限由5年改为4年，设备的预计净残值由1 000元改为600元。该设备2018年的折旧额为___元。

甲公司2017年10月10日向乙公司销售一批商品，含税价款为468万元，销售成本为350万元，截止2017年12月31日尚未收到上述款项，甲公司按其余额的5%计提了坏账准备。2018年2月28日，乙公司以产品质量不符合合同标准为由将上述商品退回。甲公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月30日，2017年度所得税汇算清缴日为2018年5月30日，所得税适用税率为25％。甲公司对此项退货业务不正确的处理是___。

A公司2018年实现净利润300万元。该公司2018年发生或发现的下列交易或事项中，会影响其年初未分配利润的是___。

甲公司2017年度财务报表于2018年4月20日经董事会批准对外报出，按照净利润的10%提取法定盈余公积。2017年12月31日应收乙公司账款3 000万元，当日对其计提坏账准备300万元。2018年2月20日，甲公司获悉乙公司已向法院申请破产，应收乙公司账款预计全部无法收回。不考虑其他因素，上述日后事项对2017年未分配利润的影响金额是___万元。

下列各项中，属于会计差错的是___。

甲上市公司2017年度财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月10日。公司在2018年1月1日至4月10日发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

2018年12月31日，该公司发现了2017年度的一项重大差错。该公司正确的做法是___。

甲公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月25日。2018年3月2日，甲公司发现2017年度一项财务报表舞弊或差错，该公司应调整___。

按会计准则规定，企业本年度发现的以前年度的重要差错（非资产负债表日后期间），应做的会计处理为___。

报告年度售出并已确认收入的商品于资产负债表日后期间退回时，正确的处理方法是___。

对下列前期差错更正的会计处理，说法不正确的是___。

某上市公司2017年度财务报告于2018年2月10日编制完成，注册会计师完成审计并签署审计报告日是2018年4月10日，经董事会批准报表于4月20日对外公布，股东大会召开日为4月25日。按照准则规定，该公司2017年资产负债表日后事项的涵盖期间为___。

甲公司于2017年1月15日取得一项无形资产，2018年6月7日甲公司发现2017年对该项无形资产仅摊销了11个月。甲公司2017年度的财务会计报告已于2018年4月12日批准报出。假定该事项涉及的金额较大，不考虑其他因素，则甲公司正确的做法是___。

2017年12月31日，W公司对一起未决诉讼确认的预计负债为400万元。2018年3月12日，法院对该起诉讼判决，W公司应赔偿S公司300万元，W公司和S公司均不再上诉，款项已经支付。W公司的所得税税率为25%，按净利润的10%提取法定盈余公积金，2017年度财务报告批准报出日为2018年3月31日，预计未来期间能够取得足够的应纳税所得额用以抵扣可抵扣暂时性差异。假设此时尚未进行所得税汇算清缴，不考虑其他因素，该事项导致W公司2017年12月31日资产负债表“未分配利润”项目期末余额调整增加的金额为___万元。

甲公司2017年度财务报告于2018年3月5日对外报出，2018年2月1日，甲公司收到乙公司因产品质量原因退回的商品，该商品系2018年1月5日销售；2018年2月5日，甲公司按照2017年12月申请通过的方案成功发行公司债券；2018年1月25日，甲公司发现2017年11月20日入账的固定资产未计提折旧；2018年2月15日，甲公司得知丙公司2018年1月30日发生重大火灾，无法偿还所欠甲公司2017年货款。下列事项中，属于甲公司2017年度资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

在资产负债表日后至财务报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后非调整事项的是___。

下列各项中，一般不需追溯重述的是___。

甲公司2017年度财务报告于2018年3月5日对外报出，2018年2月1日，甲公司收到乙公司因产品质量原因退回的商品，该商品系2017年12月5日销售；2018年2月5日，甲公司按照2017年12月申请通过的方案成功发行公司债券；2018年1月25日，甲公司发现2017年11月20日入账的固定资产未计提折旧；2018年1月5日，甲公司得知丙公司2017年12月30日发生重大火灾，无法偿还所欠甲公司2017年货款。下列事项中，属于甲公司2017年度资产负债表日后非调整事项的是___。

甲公司2018年2月在上年度财务会计报告批准报出前发现一台管理用固定资产未计提折旧，属于重大差错。该固定资产系2016年6月接受乙公司捐赠取得。根据甲公司的折旧政策，该固定资产2016年应计提折旧100万元，2017年应计提折旧200万元。假定甲公司按净利润的10％提取法定盈余公积。不考虑所得税等其他因素，甲公司下列处理中，不正确的是___。

下列用以更正能够确定累积影响数的重要前期差错的方法中，正确的有___。

下列有关资产负债表日后事项的表述中，不正确的是___。

下列关于会计政策及其变更的表述中，不正确的有___。

某公司2017年的年度会计报告，经董事会批准于2018年3月28日报出。则该公司在2018年1月1日至3月28日发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后事项的调整事项的是___。

下列各项中，属于会计政策变更的有___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的调整事项在进行调整处理时，下列不能调整的项目是___。

甲公司2018年1月10日向乙公司销售一批商品并确认收入实现，2018年2月20日，乙公司因产品质量原因将上述商品退货。甲公司2017年财务会计报告批准报出日为2018年3月31日。甲公司对此项退货业务正确的处理方法是___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

股份有限公司自资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项中，属于调整事项的有___。

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

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 think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

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___