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___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

下列各项中，属于或有事项的有___。

下列关于或有事项的说法中，正确的有___。

下列有关对或有事项最佳估计数确定的说法中，正确的有___。

2017年12月1日某物流公司接受甲公司委托由A城运送一批产品到B城，司机按照公司要求日夜兼程赶往B城，由于疲劳驾驶导致车祸，给行人李某造成人身伤害。李某向该物流公司提起诉讼，要求赔偿150万元。至12月31日，法院尚未作出判决。物流公司预计该诉讼很可能败诉，赔偿金额在100至150万元之间，且在此范围内支付各种赔偿金额的可能性相同，另外还需要支付诉讼费用3万元，基本确定可以从保险公司收到150万元赔偿款，但尚未获得相关赔偿证明。下列会计处理正确的有___。

下列各项会计交易或事项中，属于或有事项的有___。

下列有关或有事项的表述中，正确的有___。

2016年1月1日，甲公司销售一批产品，并同时约定该批产品质量保证条款，该条款规定：产品售出后四年内，如发生正常质量问题，甲公司将免费负责修理。甲公司按照当期销售收入的2%计提产品质量保证费用。2016年，甲公司销售收入为12 000万元，当年发生修理支出120万元；2017年，甲公司销售收入为20 000万元，当年发生修理支出180万元；2018年，甲公司销售收入为18 000万元，当年发生修理支出500万元。假定2016年1月1日，甲公司“预计负债——产品质量保证”的期初余额为0，不考虑其他因素，甲公司的下列处理正确的有___。

2018年，A公司发生了如下或有事项：（1）2018年5月20日收到法院的通知，甲公司向法院提起诉讼，状告A公司未按合同要求的时间交货，要求A公司一次性赔偿800万元。至年末，该诉讼尚未判决，A公司估计败诉的可能性为75%，预计赔偿金额在600万元至750万元之间，且每个金额发生的可能性相同。由于原材料由M公司提供，经咨询，A公司基本确定可以从M公司获得赔偿500万元。（2）A公司为其子公司提供债务担保，2018年7月30日，子公司借款到期，因子公司财务状况恶化无法偿还借款，银行要求A公司履行担保责任，支付本息和1 200万元。至年末，A公司尚未履行连带还款责任。不考虑其他因素，下列说法不正确的有___。

下列关于产品质量保证的说法中，正确的有___。

（1）甲公司换入资产的入账价值为___万元。

(2) 乙公司换入资产的入账价值为___万元。

（3）甲公司因此项非货币性资产交换对当期损益的影响金额为___万元。

（4）甲公司有关非货币性资产交换的处置正确的是___。

（5）乙公司因此项非货币性资产交换对当期损益的影响金额为___万元。

（6）甲公司有关非货币性资产交换的处置正确的是___。

（7）甲公司进行非货币性资产交换的账务处理涉及的账户有___。

（8）乙公司进行非货币性资产交换的账务处理涉及的账户有___。

（9）甲公司向乙公司支付的补价75万元银行存款，包括换出资产与换入资产公允价值的差额为___万元。

A公司在2017年至2018年发生了如下与债务重组相关的事项：（1）2017年3月26日，A公司销售给B公司一批库存商品，价款2 300万元（包含应收取的增值税额），合同约定8个月后结清款项。8个月后，由于B公司发生财务困难，无法支付该价款。A公司已于2017年12月31日，对该笔应收账款计提了坏账准备80万元。（2）2018年1月1日，经双方协商，A公司同意豁免B公司200万元债务，同时B公司应以一项无形资产和一项投资性房地产抵偿部分债务。 B公司的无形资产的账面原值为1 500万元，已计提摊销200万元，公允价值为1 100万元；投资性房地产的账面价值为600万元（其中成本为500万元，公允价值变动为100万元），公允价值为300万元。剩余债务自2018年1月1日起延期2年，并按照4%（与实际利率相同）的利率计算利息，同时约定，如果2018年B公司实现利润，则次年利率上升至6%，如果不能实现利润则维持4%的利率，利息按年支付。（3）B公司在债务重组时预计2018年很可能实现盈利。假定不考虑其他因素。请根据上述资料回答下列问题。(1) A公司债务重组后剩余应收账款的公允价值为___万元。

(2) A公司债务重组损益为___万元。

(3) B公司债务重组利得的金额为___万元。

(4)B公司债务重组确认“预计负债”的金额为___万元。

(5)A公司债务重组业务账务处理正确的是___。

(7)2018年B公司实现盈利，A公司2018年末会计处理正确的是___。

(8) 2018年B公司实现盈利，A公司2019年末会计处理正确的是___。

(9) 2018年B公司未实现盈利，B公司2018年末会计处理正确的是___。

(10) 2018年B公司未实现盈利，B公司2019年末会计处理正确的是___。

（1）对甲公司而言，该项资产交换涉及收到的补价÷换出资产的公允价值___25%。

（2）对乙公司而言，支付的补价÷换入资产的公允价值=___%。

（3）甲公司换入股票的入账价值为___万元。

（4）甲公司交换日应确认的增值税销项税额为___万元。

（6）甲公司此项非货币性资产交换业务对当期利润总额的影响金额为___万元。

（7）乙公司交换日应确认的增值税进项税额为___万元。

（8）乙公司换入商品的入账价值为___万元。

（9）乙公司应确认___万元的投资收益。

（3）2017年12月31日该项可供出售金融资产的账面价值为___万元。

（4）2017年12月31日该项可供出售金融资产的计税基础为___万元。

（5）资产的账面价值小于计税基础产生___。

（6）资产的账面价值大于计税基础产生___。

（7）2017年12月31日该项可供出售金融资产产生___万元。