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___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

甲在偏僻的乡间小路上运输毒品，乙见状上前抢劫，甲为了保护毒品，以暴力进行反抗，致乙重伤。甲的行为属于___。

宋某欠肖某3万元，肖某多次向宋某索要，但宋某以种种借口拖延不还。肖某遂将宋某骗出拘禁，使用暴力逼其还债，致使宋某重伤。肖某的行为构成___。

甲、乙二人从境外走私入境假币150余万元。运载假币的渔船刚一到岸即被海关缉私人员发现，甲趁机逃跑，乙手持铁棍、匕首将缉私人员打成重伤后携带假币逃走。对甲、乙的行为应当如何处罚?___

甲为了躲避持刀抢劫犯乙的追赶，在一胡同拐弯处踹开一住户大门进入躲避，不幸将一老太太撞倒在地造成小腿骨折，甲的行为属于___。

行为人在组织、领导或者参加恐怖活动组织后又具体实施杀人、绑架、爆炸的犯罪行为的，应当___。

司机葛某开车时打了个喷嚏，使方向盘失去控制，于是车冲向路边，将电线杆撞倒，电线被拉断，供电中断7小时。葛某的行为是___。

甲在从事生产经营的过程中，不知道加入某种添加剂的行为是否违法，于是以书面形式向法院咨询，法院正式书面答复该行为合法。于是，甲实施该行为，但该行为实际上违反《刑法》。关于本案，下列哪一选项是正确的？___

根据《刑法》的规定，已满14周岁不满16周岁的人，应对下列哪个罪负刑事责任？___

下列关于刑事责任年龄说法正确的是___。

下列应当负刑事责任的是___。

已满14周岁不满18周岁的人犯罪，___。

刑事责任能力，是指___。

某晚，农民张某在山中偷锯松树，锯树的声音被同村李某听见，李某遂向发出声音的地方走去，当走到距离锯树处2丈远时，树正好被锯断，倒下并砸在李某头部，致李某当即死亡。张某构成何罪？___

李某、王某二人购买了1公斤黑火药，自制了土炸药，后携带炸药去水库僻静处炸鱼。李某在岸边准备往水中掷炸药时，不慎引起爆炸，将王某炸死，自己也受重伤。李某构成犯罪？___

张某和赵某是好朋友，某日两人在工地发生争执，张某推了赵某一把，赵某倒地后后脑勺正好碰到石头上，导致颅脑损伤，经抢救无效死亡。关于张某的行为，下列哪一选项是正确的？___

林某在其女儿耿某家居住，带耿的两个孩子，大的4岁，小的2岁。因两个孩子都咳嗽，买了一瓶止咳糖浆服用。耿某用装糖浆的空瓶装了一些敌敌畏，放在原处，但忘记告诉林某。某日，两个孩子咳嗽要喝糖浆，林某以为装了敌敌畏的瓶子还是装的止咳糖浆，便拿起来给两个孩子喝，结果都被毒死。关于对林某和耿某的责任问题，下列说法错误的是___。

张某于某日傍晚，在马路上遇到两个青年正在挑逗侮辱其女友，即向前斥责。其中一个蛮不讲理，动手殴打张某。张某被迫还手，双方扭打在一起。此时，便衣警察黄某走过，见有人打架，他未问明情况，也没有表明其公安人员的身份，便从背后抓住张某的肩部，张某误认为黄某是对方的帮凶，便拔出匕首，将警察刺成轻伤。下列关于张某是否应当负刑事责任的描述错误的是？___

___的人犯罪，应当从轻或者减轻处罚。

对累犯从重处罚的刑罚制度，体现了我国《刑法》的___。

根据我国《刑法》的规定，以非法占有为目的，在签订、履行合同的过程中，骗取对方当事人的财物，数额较大的，构成合同诈骗罪。下列哪种行为不符合上述条件，不构成合同诈骗罪?___

对于附加适用驱逐出境的外国人___。

又聋又哑的人或者盲人犯罪，___从轻、减轻或者免除处罚。

已满___周岁的人犯罪，应当负刑事责任。

刘某是15周岁的中学生，因迷恋电子游戏，在电子游戏厅老板赵某的唆使下，闯入附近一居民家中行窃。刘某见该居民家中只有其女儿一人在家，遂起歹念，对其实施强奸后逃离。下列表述中正确的是___。

已满14周岁不满16周岁的人，___的，应当负刑事责任。

已满14周岁不满16周岁的人，应对___负刑事责任。

因不满___不予刑事处罚的，责令他的家长或者监护人加以管教；在必要的时候，也可以由政府收容教养。

刘某（15岁）放学骑自行车回家，因逆行且车速极快，在转弯处撞着对面行走的张某，造成张某因颅脑损伤，经抢救无效而死亡，刘某的行为___。

关于未成年人的年龄认定问题，以下说法正确的是___。

我国《刑法》规定，精神病人在不能辨认或者不能控制自己行为的时候造成危害结果，经___确认的，不负刑事责任。

我国《刑法》对未成年人违法犯罪的处理有特殊规定，下列说法错误的是___。

间歇性精神病人实施的行为造成危害结果的___。

下列人员犯罪，要追究刑事责任的是___。

我国《刑法》规定，___，应当负刑事责任。

尚未完全丧失辨认或者控制能力的精神病人，实施严重危害社会行为的___。

间歇性的精神病人在___的时候犯罪，应当负刑事责任。

甲患有梦游症，一天夜晚在梦游时将同宿舍的乙杀死。此案中，甲的行为___。

黄某为投身恐怖主义活动而参加了某国际恐怖主义组织，但未参与严重暴力犯罪活动。黄某的行为属于___。

我国《刑法》规定的相对负刑事责任年龄，是指___。

以下说法中，错误的是___。