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。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

按照《商业银行流动性风险管理办法（试行）》规定，商业银行______应当承担流动性风险管理的最终责任。___

按照《商业银行流动性风险管理办法（试行）》规定，合理审慎设定在压力情景下商业银行满足流动性需求并持续经营的最短期限，在影响整个市场的系统性冲击情景下该期限应当不少于______天。___

按照《商业银行流动性风险管理办法（试行）》规定，压力测试频率应当与商业银行的规模、风险水平及市场影响力相适应；常规压力测试应当至少每______进行一次，出现市场剧烈波动等情况时，应当增加压力测试频率。___

按照《商业银行流动性风险管理办法（试行）》规定，商业银行的流动性覆盖率应当______，存贷比应当______，流动性比例应当______。___

2013年6月20日，国内银行间隔夜回购利率最高达到30%，各类资金利率高烧不止，银行资金面呈现高度紧张状态。这场“大钱荒”持续了足足一个月，对所有银行的流动性风险管理提出了前所未有的挑战。人民银行、银监会更是加大了对商业银行流动性风险的监管力度，要求各银行建立健全流动性风险管理体系，有效识别、计量、监测和控制流动性风险，根据《商业银行流动性风险管理办法（试行）》的规定，其中下列指标说法正确的是_________

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，下列哪类案件属于重大、恶性案件_________

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，案件责任人员被撤职后，______年内不得安排担任同职级及以上职务___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，涉案金融等值达到______以上属于重大、恶性的案件。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，根据责任认定情况，发生涉案金额等值人民币一百万元（含）以上案件的，银行业金融机构应当给予案发层级机构主要负责人______（含）以上处分。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，案件责任人员被撤职后，______年内不得安排担任同职（级）及以上职务。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，发生重大、恶性案件的，全国性银行业金融机构应当由______牵头组织开展具体案件问责工作。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于印发银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法的通知》规定，银行业金融机构原则上应当在立案之日起______个月内对案件责任人员做出处理决定，并在决定后______个工作日内由案发层级机构的上一级机构向银行业监督管理机构报告。___

A银行发生一笔金融案件，立案之日为2014年3月1日。依据《银行业金融机构案件问责工作管理暂行办法》规定，原则上A银行应当于____之前对案件责任人员做出处理。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业基层营业机构管理的通知》规定，按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业基层营业机构管理的通知》规定，对高管人员违规直接或变相参与民间借贷、违规担保和非法集资活动的，一律_______。___

A银行济南分行副行长通过其弟，以其弟弟的名义将资金投入民间借贷，高息借给当地一家房地产开发商。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业基层营业机构管理的通知》的规定，监管部门可以给予该副行长 的处罚措施。___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行披露的年度财务会计报告须经具有相应资质的会计师事务所审计。资产规模少于______亿元人民币的农村信用社可不经会计师事务所审计。___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行财务会计报告由______ 组成。___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应在会计报表附注中说明会计报表中重要项目的明细资料，其中应付利息应包括______ ①计提方法 ②余额 ③发生额 ④变动情况___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应在会计报表附注中披露资本充足状况，包括______ ①风险资产总额 ②资本净额的数量和结构 ③核心资本充足率 ④资本充足率___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应披露披露各类风险和风险管理情况主要包括______①信用风险状况 ②流动性风险状况 ③市场风险状况 ④操作风险状况 ⑤其他风险状况___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应将信息披露的内容以中文编制成年度报告，于每个会计年度终了后的______内披露。因特殊原因不能按时披露的，应至少提前______向中国银行业监督管理委员会申请延迟。___

按照《商业银行信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应将年度报告在公布之日______日以前报送中国银行业监督管理委员会。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业客户投诉处理工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应将本单位投诉处理程序及相关规定报银监会备案，并于_______向银监会书面报告相关机制运行情况。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业客户投诉处理工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应通过定期检查回顾不断完善其投诉处理机制，定期检查回顾工作要由_______进行，以保证检查回顾的公正和有效。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业客户投诉处理工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应及时对客户投诉作出回应并展开调查，按照业务的复杂程度在不同时限要求内妥善解决并最终给予答复，不能按预定时间处理完毕的，_______。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业客户投诉处理工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应明确本行客户投诉处理的_______，并确保负责投诉处理的部门和人员与被投诉事件的相对独立性，___

按照《中国银监会关于完善银行业金融机构客户投诉处理机制切实做好金融消费者保护工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构_______应当将关注和维护金融消费者的合法权益作为重要职责之一。___

按照《中国银监会关于完善银行业金融机构客户投诉处理机制切实做好金融消费者保护工作的通知》规定，投诉处理应当高效快速。处理时限原则上不得超过_______个工作日。___

按照《中国银监会关于完善银行业金融机构客户投诉处理机制切实做好金融消费者保护工作的通知》规定，情况复杂或有特殊原因的，可以适当延长处理时限，但最长不得超过_______个工作日，并应当以短信、邮件、信函等方式告知客户延长时限及理由。___

按照《中国银监会关于完善银行业金融机构客户投诉处理机制切实做好金融消费者保护工作的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其各级分支机构应当做好金融消费者投诉统计、分析工作，并形成_______报告报送银监会或其派出机构。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应该坚持_______，合理安排柜面窗口，缩减等候时间，不得无故拒绝银行业消费者合理的服务需求。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构在产品销售的过程中，严格区分_______和_______，不得混淆、模糊两者性质向银行业消费者误导推销金融产品。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》规定，_______承担银行业消费者权益保护工作的最终责任。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，除国家有权机关依法查询、冻结和扣划外，银行应拒绝其他任何单位和个人的查询、冻结和扣划，这是银行消费者拥有_______的体现。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，银行消费者在消费中享有知悉其购买、使用产品或接受服务的真实情况的权利，如：利率、手续费标准等等，这是消费者拥有_______的体现。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，银行业消费者是指_______。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，_______是实施银行业消费者权益保护的工作主体。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，以下_______说法是错误的。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，，以下_______做法是错误的。___

依据《中国银监会关于印发银行业消费者权益保护工作指引的通知》（银监发〔2013〕38号）规定，银行业金融机构应当设立或指定专门部门负责银行业消费者权益保护工作，以下关于银行业消费者权益保护职能部门的表述，_______是错误的。___