在按照原因划分的风险种类中，具有形成的不可控制，形成周期性和引其后果的共沾性特征的风险属于___

以下___是保险与储蓄的相同点

下列不具有储蓄性的险种是___。

未来某一时点的一定量现金在一定利率条件下折合到现在的价值称为___。

房屋内的金银首饰属于___

保险理赔是保险公司业务操作的重要环节，下列原则中属于理赔中应予遵循的原则是___。

在风险管理中，损失的含义一般是指___

强制保险是由国家（政府）通过法律或行政手段强制实施的一种保险。强制保险的特征是___。

按照《民法通则》规定，法人应当具备的条件包括___。

某电子设备有限公司为全体员工购买团体人寿保险，你认为不能作为被保险人的主题是___。

根据我国消费者权益保护法的规定，对符合中华人民共和国民事诉讼条件的消费者权益争议，人民法院的正确做法是___。

在保险承保中，对于属于标准风险类别的保险标的，保险公司通常作出的承保决策是___。

在保险承保中，对于属于优质风险类别的保险标的，保险公司按低于标准费率的费率予以承保。这一承保决策属于___。

收入保障保险保障的内容之一是___。

在财产保险中，被保险人获得保险保障的最高经济限额是___。

在健康保险经营实务中，保险人为了控制风险、防止逆选择，通常规定一定的期间作为等待期（或观察期）。等待期的适用对象是___。

某被保险人投保100万元的财产保险，在保险期限内，由于第三者的责任导致被保险人的财产损失50万元，被保险人从第三者那里获得赔款40万元。同时被保险人又向保险人要求赔付50万元，对此保险人的处理方式是___。

某公众责任保险保单规定的每次事故赔偿限额是100万元，累计责任限额是1000万元，免赔额为1万元。如果一次公众责任事故导致受害人财产损失56万元，人身损失35万元，且依法全部由被保险人赔偿。则保险人承担的保险赔款金额是___。

一般来说，保险销售人员在为客户设计保险方案时应遵循的首要原则是___。

根据我国机动车辆保险条款的规定，下面情况属于车辆损失保险保险责任的有___等。

保守秘密是保险代理从业人员的一项义务。这里所指的秘密是指___。

在保险实务中，财产保险合同的主体变更主要是指___。

保险代理从业人员职业道德的基础是___。

按照《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》规定，投保人及其允许的合法驾驶人被称为___。

在人身意外伤害保险中，保险期限不足一年，只有几天、几小时甚至更短时间的意外伤害保险属于___。

足额保险合同中，保险人支付保险赔款后，在取得保险标的全部所有权的条件下，保险人在处理标的物时所获得的利益如果超过所支付的赔偿金额，对超过部分的正确处理方式是___。

在保险活动中，被保险人一旦违反保证义务，保险人的正确处理方式是___。

人身意外伤害保险提取的责任准备金属于___。

在人身意外伤害保险中，除不可保意外伤害、特约保意外伤害以外的全部意外伤害统称为___。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，保险公司的业务范围分为财产保险和人寿保险。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，保险公司若要变更公司或者分支机构的营业场所，应当经保险监督管理机构批准。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，保险代理人是根据被保险人的委托，向保险人收取代理手续费，并在被保险人授权的范围内代位办理保险业务的机构或者个人。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，在财产保险中，保险事故发生时，被保险人无责任尽力采取必要的措施，防止或者减少损失。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，投保人提出保险要求，经保险人同意承保，并就合同条款达成协议，同时已收到投保人交来的全部保险费后，保险合同成立。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，被监管的保险公司的债权债务关系不因接管而发生变化。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，人身保险业务包括人寿保险、非人寿保险等业务。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，在人身保险合同中，如果被保险人同意投保人为其订立合同，视为投保人对被保险人具有保险利益。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，保险合同的形式可以是书面的，也可以是口头的。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，订立保险合同，保险人就保险标的或者被保险人的有关情况提出询问，但投保人、被保险人和受益人可以不予告知。

根据我国《保险法》的规定，保险公司有《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第二条规定情形的，无须经国务院保险监督管理机构同意，保险公司或者其债权人可以依法向人民法院申请重整、和解或者破产清算。

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

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。