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___。

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。

___0326.遇有（ ）以上大风天气不得进行土方回填、转运以及其他可能产生扬尘污染的施工。

___0327.拆模过程中如遇中途停歇，应将已松扣的钢模板及支撑件（ ）。

___0328.伸缩缝和后浇带处，应加（ ）防护，并加警示标识。

___0329.装载机铲斗下方严禁有人，严禁用铲斗（ ）。

___0330.施工现场临时架空线路必须采用（ ）和专用电杆，严禁采用裸导线架设在树木上、脚手架上。

___0331.在建筑安装过程中，如果上下两层同时工作，上下两层间必须设有（ ）或者其他隔离设施。

___0332.遇有（ ）以上大风天气不得进行土方回填、转运以及其他可能产生扬尘污染的施工。

___0333.拆模过程中如遇中途停歇，应将已松扣的钢模板及支撑件（ ）。

___0334.伸缩缝和后浇带处，应加（ ）防护，并加警示标识。

___0335.装载机铲斗下方严禁有人，严禁用铲斗（ ）。

___0336.物料提升机必须设置（ ）等安全装置。

___0337.施工现场临时架空线路必须采用（ ）和专用电杆，严禁采用裸导线架设在树木上、脚手架上。

___0338.在建筑安装过程中，如果上下两层同时工作，上下两层间必须设有（ ）或者其他隔离设施。

___0339.人员密集场所需要使用易燃易爆化学物品时，应根据需要限量使用，存储量不应超过（ ）的使用量，且应由专人管理、登记。

___0340.《体育场馆公共安全通用要求》（GB 22185—2008）规定，按照体育场馆的规模及举办活动的级别、可能产生的危害程度等将体育场馆单位风险等级分为（ ）。

___0341.《体育场馆公共安全通用要求》（GB 22185—2008）规定，体育场馆消防安全系统不包括（ ）。

___0342.电影院建筑的等级可分为特、甲、乙、丙四个等级，其中特级、甲级和乙级电影院建筑的设计使用年限不应小于（ ）年。

___0343.丙级电影院建筑的设计使用年限不应小于（ ）年。

___0344.电影院建筑外部设有突出的广告牌等设施时，应（ ），且不应（ ）和人员疏散。

___0345.电影院设置电梯或自动扶梯（ ）贴邻观众厅设置。当贴邻设置时，应采取（ ）等措施。

___0346.电影院各类用房应按其噪声等级分区布置。有噪声的用房不宜与（ ）贴邻设置。

___0347.电影院观众厅的设计应与银幕的设置空间统一考虑，观众厅的长度不宜大于（ ）。

___0348.《电影院建筑设计规范》（JGJ 58—2008）规定，银幕边框、银幕后墙及附近的侧墙和银幕前方的顶棚应采用无光（ ）或（ ）装修材料。

___0349.电影院银幕后墙面应（ ）。

___0350.当电影院建在（ ）时，应形成独立的防火分区。

___0351.电影院观众厅疏散门应为（ ）门。

___0352.电影院观众厅疏散门的数量不应少于（ ）个。

___0353.《电影院建筑设计规范》（JGJ 58—2008）规定，乙级及乙级以上电影院应设踏步灯或座位排号灯，其供电电压应为不大于（ ）。

___0354.（ ）可能会导致硫化氢中毒，甚至发生“闪电型”死亡。

___0355.一深7m左右的电力井内有多台柴油抽水机在工作，3名工人下到井内巡检时，发生一起2人中毒窒息死亡的事故。最有可能引起该事故的物质是 （ ）。

___0356.某物业公司组织工人进入下水道和化粪池进行疏通作业时，由于未采取有效的安全防护措施，导致多人中毒死亡。此类场所最常见的，可导致人员中毒的有害物质是（ ）。

___0357.《尾矿库建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1252—2015）规定，尾矿库企业应对每座尾矿库设置生产运行作业班组，实行24小时值班制，每班值班人数不少于（ ）人。

___0358.《尾矿库建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1252—2015）规定，尾矿库建设项目安全设施试运行时间不应超过（ ），且尾矿排放不应超过初期坝坝顶标高。

___0359.根据《尾矿库建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1252—2015），关于尾矿库封堵作业应注意的事项说法错误的是（ ）。

___0360.《尾矿库建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1252—2015）规定，尾矿库滩顶高程测点应当布设于滩顶较低处，测点数量应不少于（ ），且尽量沿坝轴线均匀设置。

___0361.《尾矿库建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1252—2015）规定，暴雨期间停止向库内排尾，应24小时不间断巡查，至少每间隔（ ）向值班调度报告尾矿库运行情况一次。

___0362.根据《金属非金属矿山建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1251—2015），下列关于金属非金属矿山说法错误的是（ ）。

___0363.根据《金属非金属矿山建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1251—2015），金属非金属矿山企业应配备专职安全生产管理人员，人数不少于（ ）人，其中是注册安全工程师的人员不少于（ ）人。

___0364.根据《金属非金属矿山建设生产安全规范》（DB11/T 1251—2015），金属非金属矿山企业应定期组织安全生产管理人员、专业技术人员和其他相关人员集中开展隐患排查，每月不少于（ ）。

___0365.《纺织工业企业安全管理规范》（AQ 7002—2007）规定，企业安全生产委员会应当（ ）至少召开一次安全工作会议。遇到较重大的安全问题，应当随时召开安全工作会议。