“软暴力”是指___

“软暴力”违法犯罪手段通常的表现形式有___

行为人实施“软暴力”，具有下列情形之一，可以认定为足以使他人产生恐惧、恐慌进而形成心理强制或者足以影响、限制人身自由、危及人身财产安全或者影响正常生活、工作、生产、经营___

“套路贷”是指___

实践中，“套路贷”的常见犯罪手法和步骤包括但不限于以下情形___

明知他人实施“套路贷”犯罪，具有以下情形之一的，以相关犯罪的共犯论处，但刑法和司法解释等另有规定的除外。___

犯罪嫌疑人、被告人实施“套路贷”，已将违法所得的财物用于清偿债务、转让或者设置其他权利负担，具有下列情形之一的，应当依法追缴：___

依法确定“套路贷”刑事案件管辖，“套路贷”犯罪案件可由下面哪些地点管辖？___

“套路贷”犯罪案件中的“犯罪行为发生地”包括___

24“套路贷”犯罪案件中的“犯罪结果发生地”包括___

“套路贷”犯罪案件具有下列情形之一的，有关公安机关可以在其职责范围内并案侦查：___

在办理黑恶势力犯罪案件时，公安机关侦查期间，要会同有关部门全面调查黑恶势力及其成员的财产状况，并可以根据诉讼需要，先行依法对下列财产采取查询、查封、扣押、冻结等措施：___

在办理黑恶势力犯罪案件时，公安机关对于采取措施的涉案财产，证明其来源、性质、用途、权属及价值的有关证据，一般包括：___

人民法院作出的判决，除应当对随案移送的涉案财产作出处理外，还应当：___

涉案财产符合下列情形之一的，应当依法追缴、没收:___

广泛发放三份资料，入户、入企、入校广泛发放 、 、 等3份资料，并通过新媒体平台转载链接。___

涉案财产符合下列情形之一的，应当依法返还：___

《关于办理黑恶势力犯罪案件若干问题的指导意见》所称收益，包括但不限于以下情形：___

办理恶势力刑事案件的总体要求是：___

恶势力的其他成员，包括：___

经常纠集在一起，以暴力、威胁或者其他手段，在一定区域或者行业内多次实施违法犯罪活动，是指___

恶势力实施的违法犯罪活动，主要为___

对于恶势力的纠集者、恶势力犯罪集团的首要分子、重要成员以及恶势力、恶势力犯罪集团共同犯罪中罪责严重的主犯，要：___

对于恶势力、恶势力犯罪集团的其他成员，在满足以下条件的情况下，可以依法从轻、减轻或免除处罚。___

人民法院、人民检察院、公安机关经审查认为案件符合恶势力认定标准的，应当在等法律文书中的案件事实部分明确表述。___

恶势力刑事案件中，审理被告人或者被告人的法定代理人、辩护人、近亲属上诉的案件时___

下列哪些是被确定的重点打击黑恶势力的情形?___

在农村出现的“村霸”“乡霸”等黑恶势力表现情形有哪些？___

破坏农村治安秩序的黑恶势力表现情形有哪些?___

下列哪些是在征地、租地、拆迁、工程建设等过程中重点打击黑恶势力的情形?___

在城中村、城乡结合部、流动人口聚集地，破坏治安秩序的黑恶势力表现形式有哪些？___

盘踞在商贸集市、农副产品批发、小商品零售、建筑材料等各类市场破坏正常经营秩序的“市霸”、“行霸”类黑恶势力表现情形有哪些？___

在建筑工地、居民小区盘踞的“砂霸”“水泥霸”类的黑恶势力表现情形有哪些?___

在客运、货运、仓储物流场所的"路霸""货霸"等黑恶势力表现情形有哪些?___

在工程建设、交通运输、矿产资源、渔业捕捞等行业领域出现的黑恶势力表现情形有哪些？___

金融领域的黑恶势力在进行非法高利放贷、暴力讨债活动时通常采取哪些方式？___

专门受雇他人插手各类纠纷的黑恶势力的表现情形有哪些___

下列哪些是我省确定的重点打击黑恶势力的情形?___

市纪委监委在扫黑除恶专项斗争中，把扫黑除恶同反腐斗争和基层“拍蝇”结合起来，强化执纪监察，坚决___、___，推动全面从严治党向基层延伸。___

随着打击力度的加大，黑恶势力活动逐渐趋于隐藏，主要表现为:___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

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