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?___

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___。

事实雄辩地证明，改革开放是___

十七大报告两次提到“开放型经济”，强调“开放型经济进入新阶段”，要“提高开放型经济水平”，将中国以往对外开放的境界提到了新的高度。十七大报告用“内外联动、互利共赢、安全高效”这12个字定位的开放型经济体系，正彰显了我国对外开放战略在新形势下的新特点、新趋势。提高开放型经济水平___

十七大报告指出：“强调认清社会主义初级阶段基本国情，不是要妄自菲薄、自甘落后，也不是要脱离实际、急于求成，而是要坚持把它作为推进改革、谋划发展的根本依据。”这就明确告诉我们___

毛泽东关于社会主义社会基本矛盾的理论主要包括下列内容___

党的十八届三中全会通过了《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》，对全面深化改革作出了战略部署，总目标是___

实行改革开放是___

邓小平提出的“三个有利于”标准是指___

中国共产党对台湾的方针政策一直没有改变。

1917年十月革命的胜利开辟了世界无产阶级社会主义革命的新时代，标志着人类历史开始了由资本主义向社会主义转变的进程，因此，中国新民主主义革命实质上是无产阶级社会主义革命。

毛泽东曾总结指出：中国共产党区别于其他政党的显著标志是理论和实践相结合的作风，和人民群众紧密联系在一起的作风，以及独立自主的作风。

中央提出：毛泽东思想的活的灵魂是贯穿在其全部内容中的立场、观点和方法，主要有三个基本方面，即实事求是、群众路线、自我批评。

“三个代表”重要思想的集中概括是中国共产党必须始终代表先进生产力，代表先进文化的前进方向，代表中国最广大人民的根本利益。

“三大优良作风”是中国共产党区别于其他一切政党的显著标志。

毛泽东思想是关于中国革命的正确理论原则和经验总结

毛泽东思想与中国特色社会主义理论体系是两个相互独立的理论体系

教条主义和经验主义都是主观主义的表现

解放思想就是要敢于否定一切

标新立异不等于理论创新

解放思想等同于实事求是

实事求是是马克思主义中国化各个理论成果的精髓

近代中国的特殊国情决定了中国革命必须走农村包围城市、武装夺取政权的道路

建国初期，中国共产党面临的主要任务是进行大规模的社会主义改造和有计划的经济建设。

坚持公有制主体地位，就是说在任何地方、任何产业中，公有制必须居主体地位。

陈云在中共八大提出了关于社会主义经济制度实行“三个主体，三个补充”的设想，其中在工商业经营方面，国家经济和集体经济是工商业的主体，一定数量的个体经济是国家经济和集体经济的补充。

社会主义制度建立以后，工人阶级同民族资产阶级的矛盾仍然存在，而且是对抗性的矛盾。

“社会主义初级阶段不是泛指任何国家进入社会主义都经历的起始阶段，而是特指我国生产力落后、商品经济不发达必然要经历的特定阶段。”这一说法是否正确。

发展是党执政兴国的第一要务

人才强国战略的基本含义是：全面落实科学技术是第一生产力的思想，坚持教育为本，把科技和教育摆在经济、社会发展的重要位置，增强国家的科技实力及向现实生产力转化的能力，提高全民族的科技文化素质，把经济建设转移到依靠科技进步和提高劳动者素质的轨道上来，加速实现国家的繁荣富强。

我国社会主义初级阶段的主要矛盾是生产力和生产关系的矛盾。

1956年4月，毛泽东在中央政治局扩大会议上发表《论十大关系》的讲话，提出了优先发展重工业的中国工业化道路的思想。

坚持社会主义就必须坚持以公有制为主体，坚持公有制为主体就要扩大其比重。

人权高于主权

《中共中央关于构建社会主义和谐社会若干重大问题的决定》是党的十七大会议审议通过的。

社会主义和谐社会就是人与人之间没有矛盾、没有差别的和谐。

根据党和国家的部署，2050年将全面建成小康社会。

构建社会主义和谐社会与全面建设小康社会之间是部分与整体的关系。

恐怖主义是威胁当今世界与稳定的主要根源。

多极化是世界和平与发展的重要基础

搞好与世界大国的国际关系是我国外交工作的立足点。

香港和澳门被外国势力侵占后实行殖民统治，沦为外国的殖民地。