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。

城市轨道交通运营中，城市人民政府对辖区内城市轨道交通安全运行负总责，充分发挥自主权和创造性，结合本地实际构建多方参与的综合治理体系。

交通运输部负责指导城市轨道交通运营，拟订运营管理政策法规和标准规范并监督实施，承担运营安全监管职责，负责运营突发事件应对工作的指导协调和监督管理；指导地方交通运输部门监督指导城市轨道交通运营单位做好反恐防范、安检、治安防范和消防安全管理相关工作，根据应急预案调动行业装备物资为突发事件应对提供交通运输保障。

公安部负责会同交通运输部等部门拟订城市轨道交通反恐防暴、内部治安保卫、消防安全等政策法规及标准规范并监督实施；指导地方公安机关做好城市轨道交通区域的巡逻查控工作，依法查处有关违法违规行为，加强对危及城市轨道交通安全的涉恐等情报信息的搜集、分析、研判和通报、预警工作，监督指导运营单位做好进站安检、治安防范、消防安全管理和突发事件处置工作。

交通部、住房城乡建设部、安全监管总局等有关部门，按照职责分工履行有关安全工作职责。

省级人民政府指导本辖区城市轨道交通安全运行，负责辖区内运营突发事件应对工作的指导协调和监督管理。

城市人民政府按照属地管理原则，对辖区内城市轨道交通安全运行负总责，建立衔接高效、运行顺畅的管理体制和运行机制，统筹协调相关方面共同做好安全运行管理工作。对跨城市运营的城市轨道交通线路，有关城市人民政府应建立跨区域运营突发事件应急合作机制。

运营单位承担安全生产全部责任，落实反恐防暴、内部治安保卫、消防安全等有关法规规定的责任和措施。

城市轨道交通发展要与城市经济社会发展阶段、发展水平、发展方向相匹配、相协调，城市轨道交通线网规划要科学确定线网布局、规模和用地控制要求，与综合交通体系规划有机衔接，主要内容纳入城市总体规划。

城市轨道交通建设规划要树立“规划建设为运营、运营服务为乘客”的理念，将服务要求贯穿于规划、建设、运营全过程，并结合城市发展需求、财政状况等实际，准确把握城市轨道交通发展规模和发展速度，合理确定制式和建设时序，量力而行、有序发展。

城市轨道交通规划涉及公共安全方面的设施设备和场地、用房等，要与城市轨道交通工程同步规划、同步设计、同步施工、同步投入使用，并加强运行维护管理。

城市轨道交通建设工程竣工验收不合格的，不得开展运营前安全评估，未通过运营前安全评估的，不得投入运营。城市轨道交通工程项目要按照相关规定划定保护区，运营期间在保护区范围内进行有关作业要按程序征求运营单位同意后方可办理相关许可手续。

建立健全运营安全风险分级管控和隐患排查治理双重预防制度，对运营全过程、全区域、各管理层级实施安全监控。

建立健全行业运营服务指标体系和统计分析制度、服务质量考评制度，加强服务质量监管，依法推进运营单位安全生产标准化，运营单位要依法做好运营安全各项工作，严格落实安全生产责任制。

建立健全城市轨道交通职业分类和职业标准体系、职业技能鉴定机制，完善列车驾驶员职业准入制度，规范和强化行车值班员、行车调度员等重点岗位职业水平评价，建立从业人员服务质量不良记录名单制度，规范行业内人才流动。

运营单位要制定安全防范和消防安全管理制度、明确人员岗位职责、落实安全管理措施，保障相关经费投入，及时配备、更新防范和处置设施设备。有关部门要加强涉恐情报信息搜集工作，运营单位要按照规定及时报告发现的恐怖活动嫌疑或恐怖活动嫌疑人员。

地方反恐怖工作领导机构以及公安机关等要对有关情报信息进行筛查、研判、核查、监控，认为有发生恐怖事件危险的要及时通报和预警，有关部门和单位根据要求做好安全防范和应对处置工作。

城市轨道交通运营单位依法对进入城市轨道交通场站的人员、物品进行安全检查。

从事城市轨道交通安全检查的单位、人员要按照有关标准、规范和约定实施安全检查，发现违禁品、管制物品和涉嫌违法犯罪人员，要妥善处置并立即向安全监察部报告。

鼓励推广应用智能、快速的安检新技术、新产品，逐步建立与城市轨道交通客流特点相适应的安检新模式。制定安全检查设备和监控设备设置标准、人员配备标准及操作规范。

城市轨道交通所在地城市及以上地方人民政府要构建公安、交通运输、综治等部门以及运营单位、社会力量多方参与的城市轨道交通公共安全协同防范体系和应急响应机制，加强政府部门、运营单位与街道、社区之间的协调联动，推广“警企共建”、“街企共建”等专群结合的综治模式。

城市轨道交通所在地城市及以上地方人民政府要将城市轨道交通纳入政府应急管理体系，根据上级指示制定完善应对各类突发事件的专项应急预案、部门应急预案，督促运营单位制定完善具体预案。

城市轨道交通单位建立突发事件应急处置机制，成立应急指挥机构，明确相关部门和单位的职责分工、工作机制和处置要求。

运营单位要建立完备的应急预案体系，编制应急预案操作手册，明确应对处置各类突发事件的现场操作规范、工作流程等，并立足实战加强站区一线人员培训，不需要定期组织开展应急合成演练。

城市轨道交通所在地城市及以上地方人民政府和有关部门、运营单位要配备满足需要的应急设施设备和应急物资，根据需要建立专职或志愿消防队、微型消防站，提高自防自救能力。运营公司要建立健全专业应急救援队伍，加强应急培训，提高应急救援能力。建设国家级城市轨道交通应急演练中心，开展培训和实战场景演练。鼓励和支持企业、科研院所及社会有关方面加强专业救援装备研究开发。

城市轨道交通所在地省级人民政府要加大城市轨道交通财政扶持力度，统筹考虑城市轨道交通可持续安全运营需求，建立与运营安全和服务质量挂钩的财政补贴机制，科学确定财政补贴额度。

城市轨道交通运营单位要加强城市轨道交通规划、建设、运营协调衔接，加快技术创新应用，构建运营管理体系，提升风险管控能力。

城市轨道交通是城市公共交通系统的基础力量，是城市综合交通体系的全部组成部分，其安全运行对保障人民群众生命财产安全、维护社会安全稳定具有重要意义。

市政部门的交通运输厅指导地方交通运输部门监督指导城市轨道交通运营单位做好反恐防范、安检、治安防范和消防安全管理相关工作，根据应急预案调动行业装备物资为突发事件应对提供交通运输保障。

城市轨道交通工程项目验收合格后，由城市轨道交通运营主管部门组织初期运营前安全评估。通过初期运营前安全评估的，方可依法办理初期运营手续。

城市轨道交通运营管理应当遵循以人民为中心、安全可靠的原则.

城市轨道交通运营主管部门在城市轨道交通线网规划及建设规划征求意见阶段，应当综合考虑与城市规划的衔接、城市轨道交通客流需求、运营安全保障等因素。

城市轨道交通运营主管部门在城市轨道交通工程项目可行性研究报告和初步设计文件编制审批征求意见阶段，应当对客流预测、系统设计运输能力、行车组织、运营管理、运营服务、运营安全等提出意见。

运营单位应当全程参与城市轨道交通工程项目按照规定开展的不载客试运行，熟悉工程设备和标准，察看系统运行的安全可靠性，发现存在质量问题和安全隐患的，应当督促城市轨道交通建设单位及时处理。

城市轨道交通线路初期运营期满半年，运营单位应当向城市轨道交通运营主管部门报送初期运营报告。

开通初期运营的城市轨道交通线路有甩项工程的，甩项工程完工并验收合格后，应当通过城市轨道交通运营主管部门组织的安全评估，方可投入使用。

运营单位承担运营安全生产主体责任，应当建立安全生产责任制，设置安全生产管理机构，配备专职安全管理人员，保障安全运营所必需的资金投入。

运营单位应当配置满足运营需求的从业人员，按相关标准进行上岗和技能培训教育。

运营单位应当对重点岗位人员进行安全背景审查。

城市轨道交通工程项目应当按照规定划定保护区

城市轨道交通票价制定和调整按照轨道行业有关规定执行。