“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___

7、前进或后退状态同时有效、同时失效时，允许在___状态，按压___或___键2秒切换前进/后退状态。

8、库内整备时，将GYK设置为___模式，在副司机的指挥下进行前、后走车试验___。走车试验速度不得超过___km/h，走行距离不得超过___m，使用自动制动阀制动停车，确认机车制动力。

9、库内整备好后，本务机进入___模式___，补机作业车使用【补机】状态。以不超过___km/h的速度运行到出库【一度停车】牌前或出工区专用线第一组道岔前停车，本务机、补机均按压一次___键。

10、出库调车信号开放后，确认调车信号显示正确，选择___】)模式，实施___键打点后鸣笛动车出库。

11、行车调度已告知车次时___输入车次；未告知时，按当日出站运行方向确定，上行方向输入车次“___”，下行方向输入车次“___”，首发站作业及其他情况___使用___车次。

12、依次按压___、___键进入“设备自检操作”界面，按要求分别在___端DMI进行信号自检___、键盘自检、录音自检；逢5逢10时对其中___端进行常用、紧急试验。连挂车辆各车独立进行自检。自检发现GYK状态不良时，禁止___。

13、DMI“空档”状态显示为___字，空档信号有效；有档位信号输入时，DMI“空档”状态显示为___字，空档信号无效。

14、运行揭示信息载入有两种方式：___和___。

15、U盘导入：___状态下，将U盘插入显示器的U盘接口内，DMI自动弹出“检测到合法转储器”提示窗口，选择___，确认后，直接将U盘中的揭示信息下载到GYK中。

16、核对计划揭示操作方法如下：按压【查询/.】键进入“查询操作”界面，选择“___，按压【确认】键进入“U盘输入揭示查询”窗口。核对无误后在有计划揭示___一页，按___键2秒，弹出“操作提示”窗口：“已复核有计划揭示”，选择“确认”后产生复核记录。

17、司机必须按要求核对运行揭示，如果发现揭示错误___，必须与段相关部门联系确认，重新传递、导入揭示，或者对错误揭示进行___，改用___方法输入揭示。

18、按压___键，DMI弹出“轨道车位置设定”窗口，正副司机再次核对局名___-南昌）、交路号、车站号、对标公里标等信息正确无误后，按【确认】键进入正常监控模式。

19、根据运行方向，及时切换机车信号___方向，机班厉行呼唤应答，确认DMI工况及机车信号接码情况。

20、当出站信号开放后，GYK机车信号接收正常，司机应确认机车信号与地面信号符合时，根据机车信号显示及限速控制车辆运行出站，当运行至与设置的对标公里标位置平齐时，按压___键进行对标操作。

21、在出站后___整公里标处校正 GYK 公里标。

22、遇临时限速，在运行至关系站___前的一个站___间出站___后，副司机须预报前方运行揭示内容。在列车接近临时限速地段减速地点起始位置___km___，按压GYK___键打点确认；在GYK显示屏出现临时限速信息时，副司机立岗瞭望，机班共同确认限速地段目标速度应与运行揭示调度命令一致，确认___限速值后，再次按压GYK___键打点确认。

23、调车转线作业时，司机必须执行___调车联控，停车状态下，在得到车站值班员进路准备好的通知，确认调车信号开放后，方可按压【调车】键，进入“调车状态选择”窗口，司机使用调车___)模式运行。

24、运行至首架调车信号机前不少于___m处一度停车，执行“探头手比，呼唤应答”，确认调车信号显示正确，按压GYK___键打点后方可动车越过调车信号机。

25、遇以红灯为阻挡的调车信号或穿越正线调车时，按规定请求调车进路，确认信号开放按压 GYK【警惕】键打点后方可动车；在穿越正线前___调车信号机前不少于___m处，机班两人须再次“手比呼唤”确认调车信号，并按压GYK___键打点。

26、调车返岔时，在越过信号机后的适当位置___m）停车。换端后，请求调车进路，在得到进路准备好了的通知，机班两人“探头手比，呼唤应答”确认调车信号开放后并按压 GYK【警惕】键打点动车。受条件限制停车距返岔信号机不足10米时，机班应按规定下机车确认调车信号显示。

27、司机根据进入封锁区间调度命令，正向进入时应调用GYK___数据，运行方向选择___。

28、GYK1.5版本操作使用手册规定，___时，在出站后第一个整公里标处校正 GYK 公里标。

29、解列作业时，到达解列地点，需单机运行的作业车设置为本务状态，解列后各作业车按___模式控车运行。进入封锁区间前，重联车辆参数输入和对标操作与本务相同。

30、司机根据进入封锁区间调度命令，反向进入时应调用GYK___数据，运行方向选择___。

31、重联车辆参数输入和对标操作与本务相同，补机作业车运行方向的工况信息【前进】/【后退】应切换至与___一致。

32、区间作业进入状态下到达作业地段停车后，GYK自动由“区间作业进入”转为“区间作业防碰”。车辆运行方向发生改变时，需切换方向手柄___、___键）使DMI前进后退显示与车辆运行方向一致。

33、进入区间后需要重新设置“区间作业防碰”时：按压___键，依次输入和核对相关参数，再按压___键核对路局号、交路号、车站号、对标公里标，按压【确认】键，调用GYK基本数据，再按压【区间作业】键选择___，根据调度命令输入调度命令号、运行方向___、作业起点、作业终点、作业区间限速、对标公里标参数，确认后进入“区间作业___”状态。若轨道车首次动车时与车次行别相反，则须在开车前按压___+___进行方向切换，确保GYK运行方向与轨道车运行方向一致。

作业车应在本务状态下，按压___键，依次输入和核对封锁区间相关参数，司机号1、司机号2、本/补、作业车次、交路号、车站号、公里标___、编组限速、总重、辆数、计长。

5.3.2按压___键输入核对路局号、交路号、车站号、对标公里标，按压【确认】键，调用GYK基本数据；

5.3.3按【区间作业】键，选择___，输入“运行方向”、“当前公里标”、“连挂点公里标”，选择“确定”后，进入区间作业编组状态，DMI窗口左上角显示“区间作业___”

区间作业编组状态模式控制：距连挂点公里标大于等于1km时，区间作业编组限速值取___km/h，距连挂点公里标小于1km时，区间作业编组限速值取___km/h，并按编组限速、临时限速的最低值确定模式限速值；到达终点前1公里，有语音提示，“距离终点1公里，减速运行”；停车后允许人工解除停车控制，按压___键，GYK进入区间作业编组___，DMI显示区间编组___。

当区间作业编组输入的当前公里标在连挂点公里标___时，确认后限速曲线立即闭口，语音提示“输入无效，请重新输入数据”，DMI文字提示“___”。

区间作业调用GYK基本数据时，若使用前方车站号调取数据失败，则可以使用___车站调取数据。

39、 区间作业返回操作：停车状态下，区间作业结束准备返回时，应取得车站同意返回的______办理接发列车时除外）。

40、进站信号机前___m内，机车信号接收到允许信号，DMI弹出“进站信号确认”提示窗口，确认地面进站信号机显示允许信号后，按【确认】键操作退出“区间作业___”状态，按___模式控车进站。

41、进站前，司机在规定地点执行“___”。在进站信号机前适当位置——不少于___m必须一度停车。“探头手比，呼唤应答”确认进站信号机开放后，实施GYK___，按要求进站停车。

42、机车信号未接收到允许信号或未进行进站信号确认操作，GYK按进站信号机前停车控制，运行至限速曲线闭口点前___m内停车，确认地面进站信号机显示允许信号后，按压___键，按目视行车方式控车进站。

43、 入库作业， 当调车信号开放后，本务机按压【调车】键，选择“___)”模式，以低于___km/h的速度运行到进工区专用线【一度停车】牌前或工区专用线最后一组道岔前停车，按压一次【定标】键。然后选择___模式___，专用线内运行速度不得高于___km/h ，入库速度不得高于___km/h，停车后做好防溜。

44、关闭GYK电源开关，紧急放风阀处于___状态，DMI左下角提示“供电电压下降”，延时___s自动关机。注意，关机后再开机，间隔时间必须大于___s。

45、GYK主机连接两个DMI时，一个DMI有操作权，另一个无操作权，换端操作必须在___状态下进行。在GYK主机连接一个DMI的情况下，该DMI显示为有权，不能进行___操作。