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___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于商业银行的压力测试流程的是__________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 以下不属于商业银行反映压力测试结果的承压指标的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行应该针对压力测试结果采取必要的改进措施，以下不属于改进措施的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于信用风险的压力情景的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于流动性风险的压力情景的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于市场风险的压力情景的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于操作风险的压力情景的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于商业银行压力测试体系应包括的要素的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于商业银行压力测试的内部审计范围的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于商业银行压力情景设计涵盖的风险类型的是 _________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行应尽可能以______来确定压力情景参数、风险因子相关性以及具体传导过程。___

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行应以一个或多个承压指标来反映压力测试的结果和对银行稳健程度的影响，以下不属于常用承压指标的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 以下不属于压力测试结果应运用于商业银行的各项管理决策中的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行在设计压力情景时应考虑声誉风险的溢出效应，以下不属于容易受声誉风险溢出效应影响的风险类型是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，以下不属于商业银行压力测试的文档记录应包括的内容是__________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定，商业银行应具备相关信息系统，并能根据压力测试工作需要灵活进行调整，以下不属于有关系统应该具备的功能的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行的监事会（监事）应对董事会及高级管理层 在压力测试管理中的履职情况进行监督评价，至少每年向股东大会（股东）报告______次。___

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行应确定独立的验证部门或团队对压力测试体系进行持续有效的评估并出具验证评估报告，原则上不低于______年______次。___

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 以下不属于压力测试应在商业银行风险管理中发挥的作用的是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 商业银行董事会应当承担压力测试管理的最终责任，以下不属于商业银行董事会应该履行的职责的是__________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 以下不适于开展反向压力测试的领域是_________

根据《商业银行压力测试指引》规定， 以下不属于压力情景分类的是_________

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，_______________对案件处置工作负直接责任。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，_______________对案件处置工作负督导和稽查责任。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，银行业金融机构案件的调查实行专案负责制。银行业金融机构在发生案件后，应当根据案件的_______________和金额组成由相应层级的管理人员负责的专案组，承担案件的调查工作。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，银行业金融机构案件（风险）信息报送应当坚持_______________的原则。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，银行业金融机构案件防控工作联席会议的召开方式：___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件处置三项制度的通知》规定，召开联席会议的提议原则上应当至少在会议召开前_______________向联席会议办事机构提出并书面提交会议议题。___

甲银行为银监会直接监管的银行业金融机构，A公司为甲银行十大授信企业之一，陈某为A公司大股东及法定代表人。2014年5月1日甲银行因贷款到期还款问题联系陈某，但经多方努力均无法联系上陈某，经向A公司其他人员了解，陈某已经失联多日。依据《银行业金融机构案件（风险）信息报送及登记办法》规定，甲银行总部应立即报送____。 ___

甲银行为银监会直接监管的银行，2014年6月15日甲银行发现一笔风险事件，2014年6月20日该事件确认为案件。依《银行业金融机构案件（风险）信息报送及登记办法》规定，甲银行应在该事件确认为案件后____报送案件信息。___

按照《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，下列哪一项不是银行业金融机构国别风险引发原因_______________。___

按照《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构国别风险的主要类型是_______________。___

按照《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，下列哪项说法是错误的_______________。___

按照《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构应当按《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》对国别风险进行分类，高国别风险的资产计提国别风险准备金是_______________。___

按照《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构_______________承担监控国别风险管理有效性的最终责任。___

为准确反映国别风险评估结果，A银行建立了国别风险内部评级体系，依据《银行业金融机构国别风险管理指引》规定，以下关于该体系的表述，不正确的是 。___

按照《银行业金融机构外包风险管理指引》规定，以下外包业务的定义哪一个是对的__________________

按照《银行业金融机构外包风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构的战略管理、核心管理以及内部审计等职能_______________外包。___

按照《银行业金融机构外包风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构外包管理的组织架构应当包括_______________。___

按照《银行业金融机构外包风险管理指引》规定，以下哪些说法是错误的_______________。___