（2）下列各句中加线的词与例句中的“涂炭”用法相同时一项是（ ） 例句：致遗中国生民涂炭于寇手 A. 即能北逐獯鬻 B. 有以兵刃至御所者刑之 C. 惧有伏焉 D. 稍稍宾客其父

（3）以下句子分别编成四组，能够表现太宗强兵策略的一组是（ ） ①文武官五品已上先无爵者赐爵一级，六品已下加勋一转 ②令颉利归所掠中国户口 ③兵士唯习弓马，庶使汝斗战，亦望汝前无横敌 ④帝亲自临试，射中者随赏弓刀、布帛 ⑤今引裨卒之人，弯弧纵矢于轩陛之侧 A. ①③④ B. ③④ C. ②③④ D. ④⑤

（4）下列叙述不符合原文意思的一项是（ ） A. 太宗即位后，大赦天下的罪人，免除天下一年徭役，遣散后宫的宫女三千多人。 B. 太宗命令私家不得随便立妖神，滥设祭祀，不符合礼制规定的祭祀，一律禁止。 C. 太宗总结自汉至隋的教训，告诫将士平时要练兵，否则，一旦外族侵犯，便无力抵抗。 D. 太宗不让挖池筑苑，禁止建造各种浪费钱财的设施，以免农民放纵逸乐，影响生产。

（1）第二段中，作者借用梭罗的话，是为了说明（ ） A. 信息太多，传播太快，会造成人们预想不到的危机。 B. 信息过剩会降低信息的质量，影响双方密切的接近。 C. 过剩信息的快速传播，将可能湮没真正有价值的信息。 D. 信息的快速传播，使人们无法判断某些信息之间的本质区别。

（2）第二段中，画横线的语句作者要强调的意思是（ ） A. 高速多向的信息传播将会造成信息的创造和质量的不平等。 B. 在高速多向的信息时代，对信息及时准确地传播和判断的重要性。 C. 充分肯定了“信息高速公路”给人类带来的好处，但要注意纠错。 D. 信息的快速传播将给人类带来许多无法及时纠正的错误信息。

（3）根据第三段内容，对“信息污染”产生的客观原因，解释错误的一项是（ ） A. 过去十年计算机的飞速发展。 B. 因特网全球化趋势的逐渐形成。 C. 人们心理上对大量信息的依赖。 D. 发送与接受信息的简便快捷。

（4）综观全文，对第一段中提到的“新的危机”的正确理解是（ ） A. 信息过剩与经济危机 B. 信息贬值与心理压力 C. 信息传播与信息污染 D. 信息贬值与信息污染

（1）对“太阳‘打喷嚏’”的科学解释，准确的一项是（ ） A. 每隔10-11年，在太阳活动进入高峰期时因能量增加形成周期性的太阳风。 B. 太阳对地球产身的一股强大的夹带磁场的带电粒子流，它具有极大的破坏性。 C. 太阳自身活动加强时太空释放大量带电粒子形成的高速粒子流的天文现象。 D. 太阳风气团中的带电的等离子体高速闯入太空影响地球正常运行的天文现象。

（2）下列有关“太阳风”的解说，不正确的一项是（ ） A. 太阳风具有高速性，进入太空后将产生等离子体。 B. 太阳风的磁场效应对地球的空间环境影响甚大。 C. 太阳自身能量的增加是产生太阳风的根本原因。 D. 太阳风中的高能粒子有一部分可能穿越地磁层。

（3）对“太阳‘打喷嚏’，人体受连累”的含义，理解正确的一项是（ ） A. X射线使人们感染疾病的几率大大地增加了。 B. 太阳风能破坏治疗疾病的新抗体原料的合成。 C. 人体内淋巴细胞合成蛋白质的功能下降一半。 D. 太阳风产生的过量辐射能降低人体抗病能力。

（4）下列叙述，不符合文意的一项是（ ） A. 太阳活动的强弱变化具有周期性。 B. 太阳风对地球空间磁场大有干扰。 C. 太阳风导致臭氧层破坏形成空洞。 D. 太阳风对供电网的运行有副作用。

（1）下面对第一段文意的理解，不正确的一项是（ ） A. 科学家认为，愤怒和压抑是忧郁的两种表现形式 B. 科学家认为，为美好的春天高歌是典型的喜悦情境 C. 科学家认为，喜悦可以使人留恋生命.延年益寿 D. 科学家认为，紧张感是一种有益于生命的情绪

（2）下面对第二段文意的理解，不正确的一项是（ ） A. 由脑垂体分泌出来的荷尔蒙是喜悦状态的生理反应 B. “一种可爱药物”是只对啮齿类动物才有特效的药物 C. 医生们关注的“严肃的事情”是指一些能致病的事物 D. 行为科学学者与医生在研究人类喜悦上都不够积极

（3）下面对第三段文意的理解，正确的一项是（ ） A. 大多数科学家都能从正确的角度研究和解释幸福感 B. 研究者说不能理解幸福是因为无法让实验者产生幻觉 C. 作者认为，“压抑的缺失”是喜悦感产生的主要来源 D. 作者认为，“积极存在状态”是喜悦感的独立状态

（4）下面对第四段文意的理解，正确的一项是（ ） A. 笑不属于喜悦，所以可以在实验室里进行分析研究 B. 当笑声结束时，血压和心率都会自动恢复原来状态 C. 忍受更高电流强度，说明人在欢笑时可以抵消不适 D. 医生们脸上“欢欣的微笑”有助于缓解病人的不适

某上市公司在其招股说明书中所列的募集资金用途为投入一项等离子电视机生产线。新股发行上市后，该上市公司发现上述生产线的市场前景欠佳，遂决定取消该项目，将募集资金用于其他顶目?枏据《证券法》的规定，上述行为须经___

"依法负有信息披露义务的公司、企业向股东和社会公众提供虚假的或者隐瞒重要事实的财务会计报告，或者对依法应当披露的其他重要信息不按照规定披露，严重损害股东或者其他人利益，或者有其他严重情节的，对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，处以___。

"根据《证券法》，下列属于上市公司临时报告中应披露的“重大事件”的是___

根据《公司法》，发起人持有的本公司的股份自公司成立之日起___内不得转让。

股东不应当___。

根据《公司法》，股份有限公司董事会做出决议，应由___

根据《证券法》，以下对证券公开发行的叙述中，错误的是___

"根据《公司法》规定，应当在两个月内召开临时股东大会的事项不包括___

"根据《首次公开发行股票并上市管理办法》，以下公司中不符合首发管理办法的是___

"下列文件中，不属于《公司法》中股份公司的股东有权查阅的是___

根据《公司法》，以下不属于有限责任公司法定设立条件 的是___

以下情况___，决议相关内容无效。

公司以减少注册资本为目的回购普通股公开发行优先股，以及以非公开发行优先股为支付手段向公司特定股东回购普通股的，股东大会就回购普通股作出决议，应当经出席会议的普通股股东（含表决权恢复的优先股股东）所持表决权的___

根据《公司法》，单独或合计持有股份有限公司___以上股份的股东，有权向股东大会提出临时提案。

股份有限公司的清算组由___组成。

股东大会分为年度大会和临时股东大会。年度股东大会每年召开一次，应当于上一会计年度结束后的___个月内举行。

上市公司定期报告中财务会计报告被出具非标准审计报告的，___应当针对该审计意见涉及事项作出专项说明。

根据《首次公开发行股票并上市管理办法》，发行人的___、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人员等责任主体应当诚实守信，全面履行公开承诺事项，不得在发行上 市中损害投资者的合法权益。

根据《首次公开发行股票并上市管理办法》，发行人董事会应当依法就本次发行股票的具体方案、本次募集资金使用的可行性及其他必须明确的事项作出决议，并提请___批准。

根据《上市公司信息披露管理办法》，上市公司应当披露的定期报告包括年度报告、中期报告和季度报告。___中的财备会计报告应当经具有证券、期货相关业各咨格的会

上市公司的关联自然人，不包括___

根据《证券法》，证券交易内幕信息的知情人不包括___

关联交易应遵循的原则不包括___

下列事项不是由股东大会决定的是___

上市公司披露盈利预测的，利润实现数如未达到盈利预测的百分之八十，除因不可抗力外，______应当在股东大会及中国证监会指定报刊上公开作出解释并道歉。___

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.

___ 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___