406根据《证券法》有关规定，证券在证券交易所的交易除可采用公开的集中交易方式外，还可采用国务院证券监督管理机构枇准的其他交易方式

407根据《证券法》有关规定，某上市公司董事将其持有的公司股票在买入后三个月内即卖出，公司的一名小股东得知公司董事会没有收回该董事买卖所得收益，则可以为了公司的利益以自己的名义直接向人民法院提起诉讼

408证券交易所可以制定高于《证券法》规定的上市条件，但须报国务院证券监督管理机构批准

409根据《证券法》有关规定，签订上市协议的公司公告股票上市的有关文件和上市公司的年度报告中均应披露公司的实际控制人、持有公司股份最多的前十名股东名单和持股数额

410根据《证券法》有关规定，某上市公司监事在度假期间因涉嫌交通肇事罪而被司法机关逮捕，因该涉嫌犯罪行为非职务行为，上市公司无需就此事件作出披露

411根据《证券法》有关规定，上市公司公告的信息披露资料存在虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏，致使投资者在证券交易中遭受损失的，上市公司应当承担赔偿责任；上市公司的控股股东、实际控制人有过错的，应当与上市公司承担连带赔偿责任

412根据《证券法》有关规定，为上市公司出具审计报告、资产评估报告或者法律意见书等文件的证券服务机构的有关人员，在上述文件公开前买卖该公司股票将构成内慕交易，但在公开后即可合法地买卖

413根据《证券法》有关规定，国有企业和国有资产控股的企业在遵守国家有关规定的前提下可以买卖上市交易

414根据《证券法》有关规定，投资者持有一个上市公司已发行的股份达到百分之五后，其所持该上市公司已发行的股份比例每增加或者减少百分之五，应当在该事实发生之日起三日内进行报告和公告，同时上市公司亦应将该事件予以公告

415根据《证券法》有关规定，采取要约收购方式的，收购人在收购期限内不得采取要约规定以外的形式和超出要约的条件实入被收购公司的股票

416根据《公司法》，有限责任公司设董事会，其成员为五人至十三人

417根据《公司法》，监事会中的职工代表由公司职工通过职工代表大会、职工大会或者其他形式民主选举

418根据《公司法》，监事会主席召集和主持监事会会议；监事会主席不能履行职务或者不履行职务的，由监事会副主席召集和主持监事会会议；监事会副主席不能履行职务或者不履行职务的，由三分之二以上监事共同推举一名监事召集和主持监事会会议

419根据《公司法》，发行股份的股款缴足后，必须经依法设立的验资机构验资并出具证明。发起人应当自股款缴足之日起六十日内主持召开公司创立大会

420根据《公司法》，董事会每年度至少召开一次会议，每次会议应当于会议召开十日前通知全体董事和监事

421根据《公司法》，须经股东大会审批的对外担保，包括为资产负债率超过50%的担保对象提供的担保

422根据《公司法》，须经股东大会审批的对外担保，包括单笔担保额超过最近一期经审计净资产10%的担保

423根据《公司法》，担任因违法被吊销营业执照、责令关闭的公司、企业的法定代表人，并负有个人责任的，自该公司、企业被吊销营业执照之日起未逾三年，不得担任公司的董事、监事、高级管理人员

424根据《公司法》，个人所负数额较大的债务到期未清偿的，可以担任公司的董事、监事、高级管理人员

425根据《公司法》，董事会对股东会负责，召集股东会会议，执行股东会的决议，并向股东会报告工作

426根据《公司法》，直接或间接持有上市公司已发行股份5%以上或者是上市公司前10名股东中的自然人股东及其直系亲属不得担任独立董事

427根据《公司法》，一个公司吸收其他公司为吸收合并，被吸收的公司解散。两个以上公司合并设立一个新的公司为新设合并，合并各方解散

428根据《公司法》，公司合并，应当由合并各方签订合并协议，并编制利润表及财产清单。公司应当自作出合并决议之日起十日内通知债权人，并于三十日内在报纸上公告。债权人自接到通知书之日起三十日内，未接到通知书的自公告之日起四十五日内，可以要求公司清偿债务或者提供相应的担保

429根据《公司法》，股份有限公司股东按照实缴的出资比例分取红利；公司新增资本时，股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。但是，全体股东约定不按照出资比例分取红利或者不按照出资比例优先认缴出资的除外

430根据《公司法》，修改公司章程、增加或者减少注册资本的决议为特殊决议，必须经出席会议的股东所持表决权的三分之二以上才可以通过

431根据《公司法》，董事会秘书负责办理上市公司信息对外公布等相关事宜

432根据《公司法》，有限责任公司不设董事会的，股东会会议由执行董事召集和主持

433根据《公司法》，允许公司为将股份奖励给本公司职工而收购公司股份，所收购股份应当在6个月内转让给职工

434根据《公司法》，股东会行使的职权包括审议批准公司的利润分配方案和弥补亏损方案

435根据《公司法》，公司为公司股东或者实际控制人提供担保的，必须经股东会或者股东大会决议。前款规定的股东或者受前款规定的实际控制人支配的股东，不得参加前款规定事项的表决。该项表决由出席会议的其他股东所持表决权的过半数通过

436根据《上海证券交易所股票上市规则》，上市公司董事会审议关联交易事项时，关联董事包括在交易对方任职，或者在能直接或间接控制该交易对方的法人或其他组织、该交易对方直接或者间接控制的法人或其他组织任职的董事

437根据《证券法》，股份有限公司申请股票上市，公开发行的股份应达到公司股份总数的百分之二十五以上；公司股本总额超过人民币三亿元的，公开发行股份的比例为百分之十以上

438根据《证券法》，公司不按照规定公开其财务状况，或者对财务会计报告作虚假记载，可能误导投资者 的，由证券交易所决定暂停其股票上市交易

439根据《证券法》，可能对上市公司股票交易价格产生较大影响的重大事件包括公司的经营方针和经营范 围的重大变化、重大投资行为和重大的购置财产的决定，不包括公司订立的可能对公司的资产、负债、权益和经营成果产生重要影响的合同

440根据《证券法》，公开发行公司债券，债券的利率不得超过中国证监会限定的利率水平

441根据《公司法》，有限责任公司的股东之间可以相互转让其全部或者部分股权。股东向股东以外的人转让股权，应当经其他股东过半数同意。股东应就其股权转让事项书面通知其他股东征求同意，其他股东 自接到书面通知之日起满十五日未答复的，视为同意转让

442根据《公司法》，董事任期届满未及时改选，或者董事在任期内辞职导致董事会成员低于法定人数的， 在改选出的董事就任前，原董事仍应当根据法律、行政法规和公司章程的规定，履行董事职务

443根据《证券法》，公司对公开发行股票所募集资金，必须按照招股说明书所列资金用途使用。擅自改变用途而未作纠正的，或者未经股东大会认可的，不得公开发行新股

444根据《公司法》，公司持有的本公司股份不得分配利润

445根据《公司法》，有限责任公司设监事会，其成员不得少于三人。股东人数较少或者规模较小的有限责任公司，可以设一至二名监事，不设监事会

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___

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___