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___

回答人为什么活着___

消防部队在抢险救援行动中将警戒区域划分为重危区、中危区、轻危区和安全区。___(易)

抢险救援事故现场有易燃易爆气体或有毒有害物质扩散时，消防车要选择上风方向或侧上风方向的适当位置停靠，使用下风方向的水源；在扩散区上风、侧上风方向选择进攻路线接近扩散区。___（易）

公安消防部队参加抢险救援的主要任务就是要充分发挥人员和装备的作用，积极营救急待救助的人员，尽力消除险情和控制事态的发展，努力减少人员伤亡和财产损失。___(易)

消防部队既是一支同火灾作斗争的专业化队伍，同时也是处置其它紧急灾害事故，实施抢险救援的重要力量。___(易)

消防部队参加的各种事故的抢险救援主要有：地震、风灾、水灾、泥石流等。___（易）

消防部队参加的各种自然灾害的抢险救援主要有：地震、风灾、水灾、泥石流等。___(易)

消防部队参加的各种自然灾害的抢险救援主要有：危险化学品泄漏事故、建筑物倒塌事故、交通事故等。___（易）

抢险救援的一般处置程序和方法包括：接警出动、个人防护、现场询情、侦察检测、设立警戒、疏散救生、排除险情、现场急救、洗消处理和清理移交。___(中)

抢险救援的一般处置程序和方法包括：接警出动、个人防护、火情侦察、设立警戒、疏散救生、现场供水、现场排烟、排除险情、现场急救、现场破拆、洗消处理和清理移交。___(中)

公安消防部队在参加抢险救援行动中二级防护的标准是：全身、内置式重型防化服、全棉防静电内外衣、正压式空气呼吸器或全防型滤毒罐。___(中)

公安消防部队在参加抢险救援行动中三级防护的标准是：呼吸、简易防化服、战斗服、简易滤毒罐、面罩或口罩、毛巾等防护器材。___(中)

公安消防部队在参加抢险救援行动接警到场后，应详细询问事故发生的基本情况、有无人员伤亡、被困情况、采取处置的措施、其它救援力量到场施救的情况。___(中)

公安消防部队在参加抢险救援行动接警到场后，若遇危险化学品外泄，应问清容器种类、储量、泄漏量、泄漏的时间、部位、形式等。___(中)

公安消防部队在参加抢险救援行动，事故现场有易燃易爆气体或有毒有害物质扩散时，消防车要选择下风方向的适当位置停靠，使用下风方向的水源；在扩散区上风、侧上风方向选择进攻路线接近扩散区。___(中)

建筑倒塌事故特点为：突发性强、人员伤亡重、破坏性大、易引发次生灾害、火灾危险性大、造成社会秩序混乱和救援难度大。___(中)

建筑倒塌事故处置程序与措施为：现场询情、侦察检测、设立警戒、救生排险、现场急救和清理移交。___(中)

建筑倒塌事故处置过程中救人应坚持“救多数人、救活着的人”的原则，按照“由浅入深、由外向内、先易后难、先重伤后轻伤、先救人后救物”的顺序进行。___(中)

徒手救人是指救援人员依靠救人工具搬运被救助者的技能。___（易）

在实施徒手救人时，救援人员必须坚守确保被救助人员生命安全、救助被救助人员程序规范、征得被救助人员同意允许等三个原则。___（易）

运用徒手救人方法时，对肢体骨折和受伤被救助者，可以不顾伤情，救出要紧。___（易）

背人法被救者上肢需要配合救援人员，上肢受力，对上肢骨折或负伤的被救助人员会加重伤势。___（易）

肩负法、双人肩负法原则上只适用肢体身体无严重外伤的被救助人员。___（中）

抢险救援头盔是消防员在地震、建筑倒塌、交通事故等现场进行抢险救援作业时佩戴的用于头部防护时防护装备。___（易）

二级化学防护服是消防员处置液态化学危险品和腐蚀性物品以及缺氧现场环境下实施救援任务时穿着的化学防护服，能防止液体渗透，也能防止蒸汽或气体渗透。___（中）

二级消防员化学防护服装不得与火焰及熔化物直接接触。___（易）

二级消防员化学防护服每次使用后，根据脏污情况用肥皂水或0.5％～1％的碳酸钠水溶液洗涤，然后用清水冲洗，放在阴凉通风处，晾干后包装。___（易）

一级消防员化学防护服装应储存在温度-10℃～＋40℃，相对湿度小于75％，通风良好的库房中；___（中）

一级化学防护服装储存期间，每半年进行全面检查一次，并摊平停放一段时间，同时密封拉链要打上蜡，完全拉开，再重新折叠，放入包装箱。___（中）

特级化学防护服是消防员在含有芥子气、生物毒剂等生化恐怖袭击、以及腐蚀性物质事故现场进行抢险救援作业时穿着的防护服装。___（易）

特级化学防护服用于保护穿着者的头部、躯干、手臂、腿部、手部和脚部等免受生化毒剂和腐蚀性物质的侵害。___（易）

特级化学防护服可以与油、酸、碱等易燃、易爆物品或化学品混装。___（易）

特级化学防护服在染有军用生化毒剂的事故现场使用后，可以保留再次使用。___（易）

防蜂服具有防蜂蜇、防蚊虫叮咬、防割、防穿刺、防水的性能，有的防蜂服还具有防火、防毒的功能。___（易）

防蜂服要存放在空气流通，干燥、阴凉的库房或场所。___（易）

防蜂服出现污渍时，可用洗衣粉软毛刷擦洗，可搓洗，洗净后要放到阳光下曝晒晾干。___（中）

国内外安全吊带按其用途主要分为两类：高空作业安全吊带和低空作业安全吊带。___（易）

安全吊带按其结构型式可以分为坐式安全吊带、胸式安全吊带和全身式安全吊带。___（易）

Ⅰ型消防安全吊带为坐式安全吊带。___（易）

Ⅱ型消防安全吊带为全身式安全吊带。___（易）

消防安全带的织带和缝线由聚酰胺纤维或聚酯纤维等原纤维制成，其织带边缘通过热封或其它措施来防止织带松脱。___（中）