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

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___

生产经营单位应当教育和督促从业人员严格执行本单位的安全生产规章制度和安全操作规程；并向从业人员如实告知作业场所和工作岗位存在的___。

生产经营单位必须为从业人员提供符合国家标准或者行业标准的___，并监督、教育从业人员按照使用规则佩戴、使用。

生产经营单位的安全生产管理人员应当根据本单位的生产经营特点，对安全生产状况进行经常性检查；对检查中发现的安全问题，应当___；不能处理的，应当及时报告本单位有关负责人，有关负责人应当及时处理。检查及处理情况应当如实记录在案。生产经营单位的安全生产管理人员在检查中发现重大事故隐患，依照上述规定向本单位有关负责人报告，有关负责人不及时处理的，安全生产管理人员可以向主管的负有安全生产监督管理职责的部门报告，接到报告的部门应当依法及时处理。

两个以上生产经营单位在同一作业区域内进行生产经营活动，可能危及对方生产安全的，应当签订___，明确各自的安全生产管理职责和应当采取的安全措施，并指定专职安全生产管理人员进行安全检查与协调。未签订安全生产管理协议或者未指定专职安全生产管理人员进行安全检查与协调的，责令限期改正，可以处五万元以下的罚款，对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员可以处一万元以下的罚款；逾期未改正的，责令停产停业。

从业人员有权对本单位安全生产工作中存在的问题提出___；有权拒绝违章指挥和强令冒险作业。

从业人员发现直接危及人身安全的紧急情况时，有权停止作业或者___撤离作业场所。

从业人员发现事故隐患或者其他不安全因素，应当立即向现场安全生产管理人员或者___报告；接到报告的人员应当及时予以处理。

任何单位或者个人对事故隐患或者安全生产违法行为，均有权向___报告或者举报。

危险物品的生产、经营、储存、运输单位以及矿山、金属冶炼、城市轨道交通运营、建筑施工单位应当配备必要的___，并进行经常性维护、保养，保证正常运转。

事故抢救过程中应当采取必要措施，避免或者减少对___造成的危害。任何单位和个人都应当支持、配合事故抢救，并提供一切便利条件。

事故调查处理应当按照科学严谨、依法依规、实事求是、注重实效的原则，及时、准确地查清事故原因，查明事故性质和责任，总结事故教训，提出整改措施，并对事故责任者提出处理意见。事故调查报告应当依法及时___。

生产经营单位与从业人员订立协议，免除或者减轻其对从业人员因生产安全事故伤亡依法应承担的责任的，___；对生产经营单位的主要负责人、个人经营的投资人处二万元以上十万元以下的罚款。

生产经营单位的从业人员不服从管理，违反安全生产规章制度或者操作规程的，由生产经营单位给予批评教育，依照有关规章制度___；构成犯罪的，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任。

【重大责任事故罪;强令违章冒险作业罪】在生产、作业中违反有关安全管理的规定，因而发生重大伤亡事故或者造成其他严重后果的，___;情节特别恶劣的，处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑。强令他人违章冒险作业，因而发生重大伤亡事故或者造成其他严重后果的，___;情节特别恶劣的，处五年以上有期徒刑。

城市轨道交通运营险性事件是指在城市轨道交通运营过程中因隐患排查治理不到位造成风险失控而发生的，对城市轨道交通运营安全和服务造成较大影响的事件。达到国务院规定的事故等级的，按国务院规定的等级和分类标准，分为___。

发生运营险性事件的，城市轨道交通运营单位___应在___向城市轨道交通运营主管部门报告。其中构成特别重大和重大运营安全事故的，按照国务院规定报告。

运营单位应组织设备供应商以及相关责任单位对运营险性事件开展技术分析，并在运营险性事件发生之日起___形成分析报告。

运营单位应在形成运营险性事件技术分析报告后___，报送至城市轨道交通运营主管部门。

运营单位应___对本单位城市轨道交通运营险性事件的发生情况、发生原因、发展趋势、变化规律，以及既往运营险性事件整改及防范措施实施效果等进行总结评估，形成书面报告并及时报送至城市轨道交通运营主管部门。

城市轨道交通运营主管部门应督促运营单位及时对本单位发生的运营险性事件制作___等多种形式的安全警示材料，开展警示教育活动。安全警示片内容应包括运营险性事件基本情况、主要原因、造成后果、经验教训等。

混合酸滴定可行性的判断依据是C'aK'a≥10-8，C''aK"a≥10-8。

水解盐类直接滴定法的判据是根据盐类由强（弱）酸弱（强）碱组成的解离度的大小。

选择指示剂时，主要以滴定曲线上的pH突跃范围为依据，只要指示剂的变色范围全部或部分落在滴定突跃范围内，都可保证测定有足够的准确度。

配位化合物中心原子和配位体时共价键结合的。

氨羧配位剂是一类分子中含有胺基和羧基基团的有机螯合试剂的总称。

在pH=2.0的水溶液中乙二胺四乙酸的最主要存在形式是H2Y。

EDTA多与金属离子形成无色配合物，因此有利于滴定分析。

铝离子与EDTA稳定常数是 。

在测定含镁的钙溶液时，若溶液pH值控制不当造成的，用EDTA法测定结果偏高的主要原因是被测离子水解，对被测离子配位平衡的影响。

EDTA的酸效应系数可用公式计算： 。

毛细管色谱柱的分流的作用是防止柱可以不用分流而直接进样。

大口径（≥0.53mm）的毛细管色谱柱可以不用分流而直接进样。

气相色谱用的分流/不分流进样口是毛细管ＧＣ最常用的进样口，它在分流出口只要装一个流量调节阀即可使用。

毛细管气相色谱法的分流比必须要通过实验来选择。

高效液相色谱仪工作的基本流程是高压输液系统提供高压稳定的流动相，流动相先将试样带入预柱、色谱柱进行分离，然后将分离后的各组分带入检测器进行检测，检测到的信号被送至工作站记录、处理和保存。

高效液相色谱分析中，选择流动相的一般原则为纯度高、粘度低、毒性小，对样品溶解度高以及对检测器来说无响应或响应不灵敏。

高效液相色谱分析中的流动相无须进行过滤。

高效液相色谱分析中流动相必须进行脱气。

在液-液分配色谱中，要求流动相尽可能与固定液互溶，提高分离效率。

液相色谱用的流动相的选择余地要比气相色谱大。