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?___

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?___

如果与亏损合同相关的义务不需支付任何补偿即可撤销，企业通常就不存在现时义务，不应确认预计负债

在借款费用允许资本化的期间内发生的外币专门借款汇兑差额，应当计入以该专门借款所购建固定资产的成本中

在借款费用资本化期间内，一般借款有闲置资金的，利息资本化金额还应扣除一般借款闲置资金产生的利息或收益

如果发现产品质量保证费用的实际发生额与预计数相差较大，应及时对预计比例进行调整

四.不定项选择题 1.甲、乙公司均为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率均为17％，2018年8月1日，甲与乙公司签订一项资产置换协议，甲公司将持有的一项采用公允价值模式计量的投资性房地产与乙公司的一批产品进行交换。甲公司该项投资性房地产的成本为300万元，公允价值变动借方余额为60万元，2018年8月1日的公允价值为393万元；乙公司该批产品的账面余额为380万元，已提跌价准备20万元，资产置换日该产品市场价格为400万元。甲公司向乙公司支付银行存款为75万元。甲公司换入的产品作为库存商品管理，乙公司换入的房地产已于当日对外出租。乙公司的投资性房地产采用公允价值模式计量。假设该项交换具有商业实质，不考虑其他交易费用。请根据上述资料回答下列问题： （1）甲公司换入资产的入账价值为（ ）万元。 A.360 B.393 C.400 D.468 (2) 乙公司换入资产的入账价值为（ ）万元。 A.360 B.393 C.400 D.468 （3）甲公司因此项非货币性资产交换对当期损益的影响金额为（ ）万元。 A.33 B.60 C.93 D.0 （4）甲公司有关非货币性资产交换的处置正确的是（ ）。 A. 换出投资性房地产按公允价值确认“其他业务收入” B.换入产品按公允价值确认“库存商品” C.换出投资性房地产按账面价值确认“其他业务成本” D.换出投资性房地产公允价值变动损益冲减“其他业务成本” （5）乙公司因此项非货币性资产交换对当期损益的影响金额为（ ）万元。 A.0 B.20 C.40 D.75 （6）甲公司有关非货币性资产交换的处置正确的是（ ）。 A. 换出产品按公允价值确认“其他业务收入” B.换出产品按公允价值确认“主营业务收入” C.换出产品按库存商品账面余额确认“主营业务成本” D.换出产品账面成本扣减已计提的存货跌价准备后计入“主营业务成本” （7）甲公司进行非货币性资产交换的账务处理涉及的账户有（ ）。 A.库存商品与应交税费—应交增值税(进项税额) B.其他业务收入与其他业务成本 C.投资性房地产 D.公允价值变动损益 （8）乙公司进行非货币性资产交换的账务处理涉及的账户有（ ）。 A.库存商品与存货跌价准备 B.营业外收入 C.投资性房地产 D.主营业务收入与主营业务成本 （9）甲公司向乙公司支付的补价75万元银行存款，包括换出资产与换入资产公允价值的差额为（ ）万元。 A.0 B.7 C.20 D.68 （10）甲公司换出投资性房地产其公允价值变动额，应作如下账务处理（ ）。 A.借：公允价值变动损益 60 贷：其他业务成本 60 B.借：公允价值变动损益 60 贷：投资收益 60 C.借：公允价值变动损益 60 贷：其他综合收益 60 D.借：公允价值变动损益 60 贷：营业外收入 60

党政军民学，东西南北中，党是领导一切的。必须增强___，自觉维护党中央权威和集中统一领导，自觉在思想上政治上行动上同党中央保持高度一致。

___是中国共产党人的精神支柱和政治灵魂，也是保持党的团结统一的思想基础。

出台中央八项规定，严厉整治___

坚持___的要求，开展党的群众路线教育实践活动和“三严三实”专题教育，推进“两学一做”学习教育常态化制度化，全党理想信念更加坚定、党性更加坚强。

中华民族伟大复兴，绝不是轻轻松松、敲锣打鼓就能实现的。全党必须准备付出更为艰巨、更为艰苦的努力。实现伟大梦想，必须___。

建设一支___的人民军队，是实现“两个一百年”奋斗目标、实现中华民族伟大复兴的战略支撑。

新时代党的建设总要求是___。

全面推进从严治党的基本要求包括___。

通过强化党性教育和理论武装，全党思想认同、政治认同、情感认同进一步增进，___进一步增强，共同的思想基础更加巩固。

十九届中央纪委二次全会确定的反腐败斗争的原则和方针有___

习近平在十九届中央纪委二次全会上的重要讲话中指出，要坚持严格管理和关心信任相统一，要求我们___

习近平在十九届中央纪委二次全会上的重要讲话中强调，要坚持以党的政治建设为统领，坚决维护党中央权威和集中统一领导___

运用监督执纪“四种形态”，让（）成为常态，（）、组织调整成为（）的重要手段，严重违纪、严重触犯刑律的党员必须开除党籍。___

党的纪律主要包括（）、组织纪律、（）、（）、工作纪律、（）。___

《党章》强调，要增强党内政治生活的___。

党的群众路线是___。

下列哪些属于党员必须履行的义务：___。

党的民主集中制的基本原则规定：___。

下列哪些属于党员享有的权利：___。

《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》要求党员在廉洁自律中做到___。

党员领导干部廉洁自律规范有___。

在长期实践中，我们党形成了以___等为主要内容的党内政治生活基本规范，为保证完成党在各个历史时期中心任务发挥了重要作用。

坚持“三会一课”制度，指的是党员必须参加___，党支部要定期召开支部委员会会议。

坚持党的领导，首先是坚持党中央的集中统一领导。全党必须牢固树立___，自觉在思想上政治上行动上同党中央保持高度一致。

新形势下加强和规范党内政治生活，必须坚持党的___。

___是中国共产党人的精神支柱和政治灵魂，也是保持党的团结统一的思想基础。

《关于新形势下党内政治生活的若干准则》明确规定，必须严明党的纪律，坚持___，党内决不允许存在不受纪律约束的特殊组织和特殊党员。

___是加强和规范党内政治生活的重要任务。

为更好进行具有许多新的历史特点的伟大斗争、推进党的建设新的伟大工程、推进中国特色社会主义伟大事业，经受“四大考验”、克服“四种危险”，有必要制定一部新形势下党内政治生活的准则、“四大考验”是___。

为更好进行具有许多新的历史特点的伟大斗争、推进党的建设新的伟大工程、推进中国特色社会主义伟大事业，经受“四大考验”、克服“四种危险”，有必要制定一部新形势下党内政治生活的准则、“四种危险”是___。

新形势下加强和规范党内政治生活，要着力增强党的___能力。

理想信念动摇是最危险的动摇，理想信念滑坡是最危险的滑坡、全党同志必须坚定中国特色社会主义的“四个自信”，下列属于“四个自信”的是___。

坚持正确选人用人导向，要求做到___。

严格党的组织生活制度，应该坚持___。

党的纪律处分工作应当坚持以下___原则：