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___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

货物列车遇哪些情形不准退行___。（行规第136条）

列车运行途中发生弓网故障时，司机应立即___，并向车站值班员（列车调度员）报告停车地点、停车原因。（行规第156条）

受电弓故障必须登顶处理时，司机按“信息上报”申请登顶作业。司机接到“接触网已停电准许登顶作业”的调度命令后，按规定做好___后方准登顶作业。

信息上报：系指___向车站值班员（或列车调度员）报告列车运行或行车设备故障信息，车站值班员接到报告或发现行车设备故障向列车调度员报告的过程。（行规用语说明）

按站间组织行车：___，但按站（所）间区间放行列车，未接到列车到达前方站（线路所）的到达点前不得开行后续列车，列车在区间仍按通过信号机的显示要求运行。（行规用语说明）

使用CIR设备发布或转达调度命令时，机车乘务员应在途中抄令登记簿中记录调度命令___，并与发令人（转达人）核对，遇接收临时限速、临时降弓调度命令时，须核对限速、降弓地段有无长短链。（标准第34条）

由机车乘务员连接软管时，由副司机负责。连接软管后，___，严禁脚蹬风管。（标准第24条）

出段前，机班全员共同确认___，鸣笛要道准备出段。（标准第18条）

机车出入段转线（含调车）过程中，___确认调车信号或道岔位置、道岔表示器，并注意邻线机车车辆的移动情况。（标准第18条）

无停放制动、自动换端功能的机车，在司机换端过程中，副司机须监护机车制动状态，发现有溜逸迹象须立即使用___等任一方法防溜，并严禁解除LKJ防溜报警。

到发线坡度不超过2.0‰的车站，仅限旅客列车办理本务机车立折换挂作业时，摘开机车前，司机采用___方可摘开车钩.

短路铜线须在轨道电路调谐区内使用，使用时擦净轨面沙土、油泥，将两端磁铁吸附在左右股轨头，确保吸附牢靠、接触良好。使用完毕及时撤除。（行规第18条）

自动站间闭塞区段，超长列车头部越过出站信号机（未压上出站方面的轨道电路）发车时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

电力机车自动过分相装置地面传感器故障停用或恢复使用时，列车调度员需发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

调整回送货列尾主机、电池时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

调度集中（CTC）区段集控站出站信号机无法开放，以调度命令作为占用区间的行车凭证时，列车调度员需发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

在禁止保留车车站保留列车时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

GSM-R区段司机须及时确认签收调度命令，列车调度员未收到司机的签收回执时，应按传送失败处理，使用列车无线调度通信设备发布，若无法直接发布时通知相关车站转达或停车交递命令。（行规第22条）

普速调度台发布的调度命令内容涉及高速铁路时，须一并下达给相关客专调度台。转发行车调度命令时，在命令内容前增加“转发×台×月×日×号调度命令”。（行规第22条）

列车列尾装置故障（丢失）运行时，由发车人员组织简略试验良好后方可发车，在调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站由机车乘务员负责。（行规第30条）

列车列尾装置故障（丢失）运行时，沿途各站应通过列车尾部标志或尾部车辆车号确认列车完整。调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站原则上办理通过，须停车时，由机车乘务员确认列车完整。（行规第30条）

出段担当货物列车牵引任务的机车须各自携带一台已建立“一对一”关系的列尾主机。列尾主机的安装与摘解由列尾作业人员负责，无列尾作业人员的由车站负责，在调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站由机车乘务员负责，应与司机共同核对“一对一”关系。（行规第30条）

列尾主机的软管连结，有列检作业的列车由列检人员负责，无列检作业的列车由列尾作业人员负责，无列尾作业人员的由车站负责，在调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站由机车乘务员负责。（行规第30条）

中途须机车换端运行的货物列车，列车尾部5辆之内禁止编挂关门车。（行规第37条）

货物列车制动系统发生漏泄超标时，司机及时通知车站，设有列检的车站，由列检处理，无列检的车站，由司机会同车站处理。（行规第40条）

普速旅客列车制动系统发生漏泄超标时，司机报告车站值班员，由车站值班员通知客列检（车辆乘务员），检查列车状况，司机配合做好试验。（行规第40条）

货物列车在区间运行遇车辆自动制动机发生故障时，可关闭车辆车门继续运行；若关门车数超过现车总辆数的6%或编挂位置不符合规定时，司机应报告车站值班员，可运行至前方站后再处理。（行规第42条）

列车在运行途中遇制动软管破裂时，司机将破损软管卸下，换上机车前部的制动软管，确认列车制动主管贯通后，继续运行。列车在区间因车辆制动主管破裂停车无法及时修复时，应就地请求救援。（行规第42条）

军事运输编挂车辆应按照《铁路军事运输管理办法》和军事运输需求办理。作业人员通信联系时不得违反规定谈及军运内容。（行规第44条）

调车作业中，调车组人员应与调车司机在同侧作业。遇司机一侧设有超过1.1m的高站台、滑溜槽等设备时，准许调车人员在副司机一侧显示信号，但事先须向司机及有关人员传达清楚。（行规第56条）

设有两端司机室的机车担当调车作业，司机执行换端操作时，调车指挥人仍在原侧显示信号（仅限单机连挂车辆）。 （行规第56条）

在调车作业中，列车尾部标志可不摘除，视为无效。司机按调车作业计划和调车人员显示的信号进行作业。（行规第56条）

被连挂车辆尾部距警冲标不足50m时，应一度停车，再行连挂。（行规第57条）

调动乘坐旅客的车辆时，必须连结不少于二分之一软管，确认通风状态良好。（行规第58条）

非集中区调车作业时，要认真执行要道还道制度，扳道员必须在确认所要进路准备妥当后，方可先显示道岔开通信号，再显示股道号码信号（有股道号码表示器装置除外）。（行规第59条）

集中联锁区，未设调车信号机或调车信号机故障停用，调车信号不能开放时，机车出入段、转线时，由信号员（车站值班员）直接通知司机越过该故障信号机；无法通知时，由车站值班员指派胜任人员在故障调车信号机处显示股道号码和道岔开通信号。（行规第59条）

尽头线停留机车、车辆时，应与车档保持10m的安全距离（尽头站台设有车钩缓冲装置时除外）。遇特殊情况必须近于10m时，要严格控制速度。（行规第60条）

越出站界调车在准许时间内作业未完，确需放行列车时，应停止越出站界调车作业，收回凭证注销，再行作业应重新办理手续。（行规第66条）

到发线坡度不超过2.0‰的车站，仅限旅客列车办理本务机车立折换挂作业时，摘开机车前，司机采用自动制动机最大有效减压后，摘解人员须确认车列处于制动状态，方可摘开车钩，处于制动状态的列车（车列）不再另行采取防溜措施。（行规第68条）

出入段机车附挂车辆时，按调车作业办理。在站内运行时，由司机负责指挥。（行规第69条）