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___

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。

不得为身份不明的客户提供银行服务或与其进行交易，不得为客户开立匿名账户或者假名账户。

单位客户由于特殊原因无法将开户证明文件正本原件带到本行开户的情况，营业机构可采取上门的措施进行实地核实，以确保开户资料的真实性。

同一客户连续办理多笔需在凭证上摘录客户信息的业务时，可以仅在该客户办理的第一笔业务凭证上完整摘录客户信息。

一次性金融服务是指：为不在本机构开立账户的客户提供现金汇款、现钞兑换、票据兑付（仅限于以现金方式进行票据兑付的业务）等金融业务。

为自然人客户办理外汇业务、理财业务、基金业务、第三方存管签约、贵金属业务、挂失解挂、账户信息变更、网上银行等电子银行功能变更业务时，应核查客户本人的有效身份证件或者其他身份证明文件，并留存客户本人的身份证件复印件和核查结果。

营业机构对本单位客户风险等级判定为高风险级别的客户，至少每年进行一次审核。

反洗钱客户风险等级划分是指各级机构根据客户身份、风险等级分类标准，对客户按照高、较高、中、较低、低五个风险等级进行分类，目的是根据客户不同的风险等级采取不同的识别和监控措施，切实防范洗钱风险。

客户风险等级分类管理只针对我行开户的所有个人客户。

客户风险等级分类标准按照客户的行业特点、业务类型、经营规模、客户范围等实际情况，分解成客户特性、地域、行业（含金融产品、金融服务）、行业等风险子项，运用权重法，以定性分析与定量分析相结合的方式来计量客户的风险，把客户分为高、较高、中、低、较低五个风险等级。

客户风险等级的调整，若从较高、中、较低或低风险客户调整为高风险客户，或从高风险客户调整为较高、中、较低、低风险的客户，须开展尽职调查。

各级反洗钱职能部门根据客户信息和交易信息，自行判断为高风险等级的客户。

客户风险等级分类由各级机构根据掌握的客户相关信息通过反洗钱监测系统自动评级和人工定性分析后对客户进行综合评定。

客户在异地跨行通存通兑业务中发生的大额交易应由办理该业务的金融机构报告大额交易。

为对私客户办理一次性金融业务和以开立账户等方式建立业务关系需登记客户身份基本信息，若客户的住所地与经常居住地不一致，登记客户的住所地。

大额交易和可疑交易报告由总行运营管理部通过反洗钱监控系统统一向中国反洗钱监测分析中心报送，即实行“总对总”报送。大额交易报告在交易发生后10个工作日内、可疑交易报告在交易发生后的10个工作日内报送。

大额交易是指可疑交易主体办理的资金收付事项的金额、频率、流向、用途、性质等方面具有异常情形。

大额交易是指交易主体通过我行营业机构办理的一定金额以上的资金收付事项。

大额交易报告以总行反洗钱信息监控系统为主进行采集，可疑交易报告实行系统批量采集的方式。

大额交易报告在交易发生之日起的5个工作日内以电子方式提交;可疑交易报告在按我行可疑交易操作规程确认为可疑交易后，及时以电子方式提交可疑交易报告,最迟不超过5个工作日。

网点审核岗必须由主办会计担任。

大额交易报告标准：非自然人客户银行账户与其他的银行账户发生当日单笔或者累计交易人民币200 万元以上（含200万元）、外币等值20 万美元以上（含20万美元）的款项划转。

在办理业务过程中，发现符合可疑交易报告标准，但未能通过对既属于大额交易又属于可疑交易的交易，应当分别提交大额交易报告和可疑交易报告；同时符合两项以上大额交易标准的，应当分别提交大额交易报告。

大额交易数据以总行反洗钱监测系统为主进行采集，可疑交易数据实行系统批量采集与人工判断发现相结合的方式进行采集。

大额提现业务中识别客户的重点之一是一次性提取大额现金的客户身份。

可疑交易报告采用我行自定义的交易监测标准通过反洗钱系统批量采集与人工判断发现相结合的方式进行采集。

恐怖活动组织及恐怖活动人员名单调整的，应当立即针对本机构的所有客户以及上溯三年内的交易启动回溯性调查，并按照规定规定提交可疑交易报告。

对跨境交易和一次性交易等较高风险业务的回溯性调查应当在知道或者应当知道恐怖活动组织及恐怖活动人员名单之日起5个工作日内完成。开展回溯性调查的相关工作记录至少应当完整保存10年。

可疑交易报告紧急程度分为非特别紧急和特别紧急。

个人客户信息补录须由本人持有效身份证件办理，严禁他人代理。

建立客户信息时“预留号码”项填写手机号，验证方式有“短信验证码验证”和“柜员拔打电话验证”。

柜员应按照个人人民币存款账户实名制管理要求，认真核对客户本人的有效身份证件和其他身份证明文件，记录客户身份信息时分基本信息及其他相关信息。

个人客户信息维护不需授权中心授权。

建立个人客户信息使用的证件，不满十六周岁的，可以使用居民身份证或户口簿。

军人、武装警察尚未领取居民身份证的，除出具军人和武装警察身份证件外，还应出具军人保障卡或所在单位开具的尚未领取居民身份证的证明材料。

代理人代开客户号时，能预留客户信息中手机号码字段。

柜员办理存量客户个人业务时，需先进行客户信息补录（1702个人客户信息维护交易），补录完后方可为客户办理相关业务。

代理人代开客户号时，不能预留客户信息中手机号码字段。

客户信息补录手机号码需“短信验证码验证”当场验证，确保该手机号码为客户本人且正常可用。

居住在境内或境外的中国籍的华侨，不可使用中国护照。

建立个人客户信息时，除必须提供的相关证明文件之外，我行可根据实际需要，要求存款人出具户口簿、护照、工作证、机动车驾驶证、社会保障卡、公用事业账单、学生证、介绍信等其他能证明身份的有效证件或证明文件，以进一步确认存款人身份