在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

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?___

___0258.进行可能危及危险化学品管道安全的施工作业，（ ）应当指派专门人员到现场进行管道安全保护指导。

___0259.运输危险化学品的船舶及其配载的容器，应当按照国家船舶检验规范进行生产，并经（ ）认定的船舶检验机构检验合格，方可投入使用。

___0260.危险化学品使用单位应对重复使用的危险化学品包装物、容器的检查情况作出记录，记录的保存期限不得少于（ ）年。

___0261.生产、储存危险化学品的企业，应当委托具备国家规定的资质条件的机构，对本企业的安全生产条件每（ ）年进行一次安全评价，提出安全评价报告。

___0262.下列说法错误的是（ ）。

___0263.申请取得剧毒化学品购买许可证时需向所在地县级人民政府公安机关提交的材料不包括（ ）。

___0264.剧毒化学品、易制爆危险化学品销售记录以及经办人的身份证明复印件、相关许可证件复印件或者证明文件的保存期限不得少于（ ）。

___0265.剧毒化学品、易制爆危险化学品的销售企业、购买单位应当在销售、购买后（ ）日内，将所销售、购买的剧毒化学品、易制爆危险化学品的品种、数量以及流向信息报所在地县级人民政府公安机关备案，并输入计算机系统。

___0266.危险化学品的装卸作业应当遵守安全作业标准、规程和制度，并在装卸管理人员的现场指挥或者（ ）下进行。

___0267.危险化学品装箱作业完毕后，集装箱装箱现场检查员应当签署（ ）。

___0268.运输危险化学品，应当根据危险化学品的危险特性采取相应的安全防护措施，并配备必要的防护用品和（ ）。

___0269.盛装易燃易爆易挥发的危险化学品的容器不准（ ），不准用（ ）容器盛装危险化学品。

___0270.开启危险化学品金属容器时，应当使用（ ）扳手等工具，禁止使用（ ）工具操作。

___0271.下列说法错误的是（ ）。

___0272.国家实行危险化学品登记制度，为危险化学品安全管理以及危险化学品事故预防和应急救援提供（ ）支持。

___0273.危险化学品生产企业、进口企业，应当向国务院（ ）负责危险化学品登记的机构办理危险化学品登记。

___0274.危险化学品单位应当制定本单位危险化学品事故应急预案，配备应急救援人员和必要的应急救援器材、设备，并（ ）。

___0275.安全技术说明书每（ ）年更换一次。在此期间若发现新的危害特性，在有关信息发布后的（ ）年内，生产单位必须相应修改安全技术说明书，并提供给经营、运输、贮存和使用单位。

___0276.经营进口化学品的企业，应负责向供应商索取最新的（ ）安全技术说明书。

___0277.使用单位使用的化学品应有标识，危险化学品应有安全标签，并向操作人员提供（ ）。

___0278.危险化学品使用单位应按国家有关规定清除（ ）和清洗盛装危险化学品的（ ）。

___0279.危险化学品生产企业申请安全生产许可证的条件不包括（ ）。

___0280.储存和使用氯气的企业，应当配备至少（ ）以上全封闭防化服。

___0281.运输剧毒化学品时，应事先依法取得（ ），按指定路线、时间、速度行驶，并设专人押运，防止被盗、丢失。

___0282.通过道路运输剧毒化学品的，托运人应当向（ ）县级人民政府公安机关申请剧毒化学品道路运输通行证。

___0283.危险化学品单位（ ）对本单位的重大危险源安全管理工作负责，并保证重大危险源安全生产所必需的安全投入。

___0284.危险化学品单位应对本单位的危险化学品生产、经营、储存和使用装置、设施或者场所进行重大危险源辨识，并记录辨识（ ）。

___0285.危险化学品单位应当对重大危险源进行（ ）并确定重大危险源等级。

___0286.重大危险源安全评估报告的内容不包括（ ）。

___0287.危险化学品单位应当对重大危险源重新进行辨识、安全评估及分级的情况不包括（ ）。

___0288.危险化学品单位应当在重大危险源所在场所设置明显的（ ），写明紧急情况下的应急处置办法。

___0289.危险化学品单位应当将重大危险源可能发生的事故后果和应急措施等信息，以适当方式告知（ ）。

___0290.危险化学品单位应对重大危险源专项应急预案，（ ）至少进行一次。

___0291.甲烷是具有爆炸危险的物质，为防止因甲烷泄漏引起爆炸应采取措施。下列措施中，对于防止甲烷泄漏爆炸无效的是（ ）。

___0292.国家对（ ）非药品类易制毒化学品的生产、经营实行许可证管理，对（ ）易制毒化学品的生产、经营实行备案证明管理。

___0293.非药品类易制毒化学品生产许可证有效期为（ ）年。

___0294.非药品类易制毒化学品经营许可证有效期为（ ）年。

___0295.第二类、第三类非药品类易制毒化学品生产、经营备案证明有效期为（ ）年。

___0296.《北京市危险化学品重大危险源安全管理办法（试行）》规定，生产经营单位应当（ ）对重大危险源进行一次安全评估。

___0297.《北京市危险化学品重大危险源安全管理办法（试行）》规定，生产经营单位应当根据（ ），及时修订和完善应急预案和现场处置方案，并保证应急预案和现场处置方案的有效实施。