“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.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

商业银行因特殊原因不能按时披露流动性覆盖率信息的，应当至少提前____个工作日向银监会申请延迟披露。___

根据《商业银行资本管理办法（试行）》经银监会批准实施资本计量高级办法的银行应当按照发布财务报告的频率，在____披露流动性覆盖率信息。___

自2017年起，高级法银行应当披露____流动性覆盖率的简单算术平均值。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，＿＿＿要发挥中长期投融资优势，在业务范围内以财务可持续为前提为生态环保、农林水利等重大工程提供期限合理、稳定、低成本的资金支持。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，银行业金融机构可以根据项目的不同特点，积极开展信贷产品和服务创新。鼓励实施＿＿＿，为重大工程项目建设提供一揽子综合性金融服务。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，发展改革部门进一步健全项目清单，搭建重大工程项目信息平台，提高与银行业监管部门、银行业金融机构信息共享的＿＿＿。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，银行业金融机构要优化信贷管理与政策，包括健全工作机制、完善差别化信贷政策、优化信贷流程、增强信贷投放能力、推行绿色信贷以及＿＿＿。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，银行业金融机构要践行＿＿＿的绿色理念，加强能力建设，积极创新绿色金融产品和服务，强化重大工程项目的绿色低碳化建设和运营管理，有效防范项目的环境和社会风险。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于银行业支持重点领域重大工程建设的指导意见》的规定，金融资产管理公司、信托公司、企业集团财务公司和金融租赁公司等非银行金融机构要发挥业务优势和＿＿＿，提供专业化金融服务。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于银行业信贷资产流转集中登记的通知》的规定，银行业金融机构开展信贷资产流转业务，即将所持有的信贷资产及对应的受益权进行转让，应实施集中登记，以促进信贷资产流转＿＿＿，实现对信贷资产流向的跟踪监测。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于银行业信贷资产流转集中登记的通知》的规定，信贷资产登记中心应严格履行日常监测和统计职责，服务于银监会的＿＿＿要求。___

根据中国银监会办公厅关于防范化解金融风险严守风险底线工作的意见（银监办发【2016】年第27号），银行业金融机构应将____也纳入全面风险管理体系。___

银行业金融机构应定期开展____，将整个金融机构置于极端市场情况下的表现状况。___

银行业金融机构应加强对____真实性的检查，并按规定将相关检查报告和处罚结果上报银行会。___

银行业金融机构应配合地方政府在市场出清过程中做好____企业市场退出的工作。___

银行业金融机构要将流动性风险的有效管理纳入整体发展战略，建立____，完善流动性风险管理信息系统的监测、计量和报告功能。___

银行业金融机构要定期向____报送已推送的小微企业融资情况。___

下列不属于商业银行在转型发展过程中的产品和服务与金融消费者应相匹配的要素____。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，银行业金融机构应当在网点 区域销售自由理财产品与代销产品。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，银行业金融机构应在 前完成销售专区内电子监控系统的安装配备工作，实现自有和代销产品销售过程全程同步录音录像。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，录音录像资料至少应保留到产品到期兑付后 ，发生纠纷的要保留到纠纷最终解决后。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，银行业金融机构要切实承担起消费者权益保护工作的主体责任，贯彻落实消费者投诉 ，及时化解各类纠纷、矛盾。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，部分确有实施困难的 可根据当地实际情况分步实施产品销售“双录”工作。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业消费者权益保护解决当前群众关切问题的指导意见（银监办发（2016）25号）》，销售专区内应公示 电话，便于消费者确认产品属性及相关信息，举报违规销售、私售产品等行为。___

按照《中国人民银行 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于进一步完善差别化住房信贷政策有关问题的通知》规定，在 ，对居民家庭首次购买普通住房的商业性个人住房贷款，最低首付款比例调整为不低于25%。___

按照《中国人民银行 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于进一步完善差别化住房信贷政策有关问题的通知》规定，在不实施限购政策的城市，对居民家庭首次购买普通住房的商业性个人住房贷款，最低首付款比例调整为不低于 。___

按照《中国人民银行 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于调整个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知 银发〔2015〕 号》规定，在不实施“限购”措施的城市，居民家庭首次购买普通住房的商业性个人住房贷款，原则上最低首付款比例为 ，各地可向下浮动 个百分点；___

___"

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于票据业务风险提示的通知》规定，下列哪些业务不属于虚增存贷款规模行为？___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于票据业务风险提示的通知》规定，对已办理票据承兑、贴现的发票、单据等凭证，不属于经办行应在原件正面注明的内容有____。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于票据业务风险提示的通知》规定，下列哪些交易模式属于假卖断真出表，通过票据转贴现业务转移规模，消减资本占用。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于银行业重大案件（风险）约谈告诫有关事项的通知》规定，约谈告诫会议采取定期或不定期方式举行。会议原则上____举行一次，集中约谈有关银行业金融机构___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，对于涉案债权资产的责任认定和清收，应由案发分支机构的____成立专案组总体负责。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，对于主动反映、举报案件线索的，可以____案发分支机构和上级机构有关责任人员的责任.___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，对于自查发现、主动揭露案件的，可以____案发分支机构和上级机构有关责任人员的责任。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，对于案发后瞒报或故意漏报、迟报、错报案件信息和为逃避责任有意以民事诉讼替代刑事诉讼导致损失进一步扩大等问题的，应对案发分支机构和上级机构有关责任人员____。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，对于银行业金融机构案发后瞒报或故意漏报、迟报、错报案件信息和为逃避责任有意以民事诉讼替代刑事诉讼导致损失进一步扩大等问题的，各级监管机构在开展案防工作评估时，应相应____考核评价结果。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于严格执行案件风险防控制度依法追偿涉案债权有关事项的通知》规定，银行业金融机构要改进绩效考评体系，突出合规经营和风险管理的重要性，合规经营类指标和风险管理类指标权重应当____其他类指标。___

资金流向监测是发现并防范非法集资的关键，非法集资大部分通过（）转账。___

以下哪一项不属于加强银行业金融机构内部管理，防范非法集资风险向银行业传递的手段（）___