《行政机关公务员处分条例》规定，对行政机关公务员给予处分，只能由监察机关按照管理权限决定。___

《行政机关公务员处分条例》规定，行政机关公务员违法违纪，已经被立案调查，不宜继续履行职责的，任免机关可以决定暂停其履行职务。___

《行政机关公务员处分条例》规定，受到处分的行政机关公务员复核、申诉期间不停止处分的执行。___

《行政机关公务员处分条例》规定，受到处分的行政机关公务员不因提出复核、申诉而被加重处分。___

《行政机关公务员处分条例》规定，有违法违纪行为受到处分的行政机关公务员，在处分决定机关作出处分决定之前已经退休的，不再给予处分，但是，依法应当给予降级、撤职、开除处分的，应当按照规定相应降低或者取消其享受的待遇。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，撤职处分适用于行政机关任命的事业单位工作人员。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员受到开除处分的，自处分决定生效之日起，终止其与事业单位的人事关系。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员同时有两种以上需要给予处分的行为的，应当分别确定其处分。应当给予的处分种类不同的，执行其中最重的处分；应当给予开除以外多个相同种类处分的，执行该处分，但处分期应当按照一个处分期以上、两个处分期之和以下确定。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员两人以上共同违法违纪，需要给予处分的，按照两人共同承担的责任，分别给予相应的处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员违法违纪行为情节轻微，经过批评教育后改正的，可以免予处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员应当给予警告处分，又有减轻处分的情形的，免予处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员在公务活动或者工作中接受礼金、各种有价证券、支付凭证，情节严重的，给予撤职处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员违反规定使用、骗取财政资金或者社会保险基金, 情节严重的，给予开除处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员利用专业技术或者技能实施违法违纪行为的，给予记过以上处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员制造、传播违法违禁物品及信息，情节严重的，给予开除处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员被依法判处有期徒刑以上刑罚的，给予降低岗位等级或者撤职以上处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员涉嫌违法违纪，已经被立案调查，不宜继续履行职责的，可以按照干部人事管理权限，由事业单位或者有关部门暂停其职责。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员受开除以外的处分，在受处分期间有悔改表现，并且没有再出现违法违纪情形的，处分期满，经原处分决定单位批准后解除处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，事业单位工作人员在受处分期间有重大立功表现，按照有关规定给予个人记功以上奖励的，经批准后可以提前解除处分。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，受到处分的事业单位工作人员对复核结果不服的，可以自接到复核决定之日起三十日内，按照规定向原处分决定单位的主管部门或者同级事业单位人事综合管理部门提出申诉。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，对违法违纪行为的情节认定有误的，受理复核、申诉的单位应当变更处分决定或者责令原处分决定单位变更处分决定。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，被撤销处分或者被减轻处分的事业单位工作人员工资待遇受到损失的，不予补偿。___

《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》规定，已经退休的事业单位工作人员有违法违纪行为应当受到处分的，不再作出处分决定。但是，应当给予降低岗位等级或者撤职以上处分的，相应降低或者取消其享受的待遇。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》施行后，《行政机关公务员处分条例》《事业单位工作人员处分暂行规定》等规定继续有效，前者并不取代后者。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，给予开除以外的政务处分的，应当在处分决定中写明处分期间。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，政务处分轻重程度不必与党纪处分程度相匹配。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，政务处分期满后不再履行解除程序。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，对人大代表、政协委员的政务处分，需要履行通报手续。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，对基层群众性自治组织中从事管理的人员给予责令辞职等处理的，由县级监察机关向其所在组织及上级管理单位提出建议。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，公职人员有违法行为，已经被立案调查，不适宜继续履行职务的，监察机关可以暂停其履行职务。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，政务处分决定送达本人所在单位执行外，还要视受处分人具体身份函告相应的机关或者群众组织等单位。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，政务案件不需履行错误事实见面程序。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，对受到降级以上政务处分的，在二个月内办理职务、工资及其他有关待遇等相关变更手续。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，公职人员依法履行职务的行为受法律保护，非因法定事由，非经法定程序，不受政务处分。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，非中共党员的公职人员涉嫌犯罪的，应当先由监察机关依法给予政务处分，再依法追究其刑事责任。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，受到降级或者撤职处分的，处分解除视为恢复原级别、原职务。 ___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，被调查的公职人员在被监察机关立案调查期间，可以交流、出境、辞去公职或者办理退休手续。___

《公职人员政务处分暂行规定》规定，对公职人员的同一违法行为，监察机关已经给予政务处分的，任免机关、单位可以给予处分；任免机关、单位已经给予处分的，监察机关可以给予政务处分。___

《中国共产党党内监督条例》规定，党内监督的重点对象是党的各级领导机关和领导干部，特别是各级领导班子一把手。___

党的各级纪律检查委员会是党内监督的专门机关。___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

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?___