根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，分包单位应当服从总承包单位的安全生产管理，分包单位不服从管理导致生产安全事故的，由分包单位承担___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当在施工组织设计中编制安全技术措施和施工现场临时用电方案，对基坑支护与降水工程、土方开挖工程、模板工程、起重吊装工程、脚手架工程、拆除、爆破工程达到一定规模的危险性较大的分部分项工程编制专项施工方案，并附具___，经施工单位技术负责人、总监理工程师签字后实施，由专职安全生产管理人员进行现场监督。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，建设工程施工前，施工单位负责项目管理的技术人员应当对有关安全施工的技术要求向___作出详细说明，并由双方签字确认。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当在施工现场入口处、施工起重机械、临时用电设施、脚手架、出入通道口、楼梯口、电梯井口、孔洞口、桥梁口、隧道口、基坑边沿、爆破物及有害危险气体和液体存放处等危险部位，设置明显的___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当根据不同施工阶段和周围环境及季节、气候的变化，在施工现场采取相应的安全施工措施。施工现场暂时停止施工的，施工单位应当做好现场防护，所需费用由___承担，或者按照合同约定执行。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当将施工现场的办公、生活区与作业区___；办公、生活区的选址应当符合安全性要求。职工的膳食、饮水、休息场所等应当符合卫生标准。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当在施工现场建立___，确定消防安全责任人，制定用火、用电、使用易燃易爆材料等各项消防安全管理制度和操作规程，设置消防通道、消防水源，配备消防设施和灭火器材，并在施工现场入口处设置明显标志。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当向作业人员提供安全防护用具和安全防护服装，并___危险岗位的操作规程和违章操作的危害。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，在施工中发生危及人身安全的紧急情况时，作业人员有权___或者在采取必要的应急措施后撤离危险区域。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位采购、租赁的安全防护用具、机械设备、施工机具及配件，应当具有生产（制造）许可证、产品合格证，并在进入施工现场前进行___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工现场的安全防护用具、机械设备、施工机具及配件必须由专人管理，定期进行检查、维修和保养，建立相应的___，并按照国家有关规定及时报废。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位在使用施工起重机械和整体提升脚手架、模板等自升式架设设施前，应当组织有关单位进行验收，也可以委托具有相应资质的检验检测机构进行验收；使用承租的机械设备和施工机具及配件的，由施工总承包单位、分包单位、出租单位和安装单位___进行验收。验收合格的方可使用。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，___规定的施工起重机械，在验收前应当经有相应资质的检验检测机构监督检验合格。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当自施工起重机械和整体提升脚手架、模板等自升式架设设施验收合格之日起___日内，向建设行政主管部门或者其他有关部门登记。登记标志应当置于或者附着于该设备的显著位置。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位的主要负责人、项目负责人、专职安全生产管理人员应当经建设行政主管部门或者其他有关部门___方可任职。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当对管理人员和作业人员___安全生产教育培训，其教育培训情况记入个人工作档案。安全生产教育培训考核不合格的人员，不得上岗。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，作业人员进入新的岗位或者新的施工现场前，应当接受___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位在采用___时，应当对作业人员进行相应的安全生产教育培训。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，施工单位应当为施工现场从事危险作业的人员办理___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，意外伤害保险费由施工单位支付。实行施工总承包的，由总承包单位支付意外伤害保险费。意外伤害保险期限自___止。

___级以上地方人民政府负责安全生产监督管理的部门依照《中华人民共和国安全生产法》的规定，对本行政区域内建设工程安全生产工作实施综合监督管理。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，___对全国的建设工程安全生产实施监督管理。国务院铁路、交通、水利等有关部门按照国务院规定的职责分工，负责有关专业建设工程安全生产的监督管理。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，建设行政主管部门或者其他有关部门对建设工程是否有安全施工措施进行审查时，___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，国家对严重危及施工安全的工艺、设备、材料实行___制度。具体目录由国务院建设行政主管部门会同国务院其他有关部门制定并公布。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，___应当制定本单位生产安全事故应急救援预案，建立应急救援组织或者配备应急救援人员，配备必要的应急救援器材、设备，并定期组织演练。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，发生生产安全事故后，施工单位应当采取措施___。需要移动现场物品时，应当做出标记和书面记录，妥善保管有关证物。

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，建设单位未提供建设工程安全生产作业环境及安全施工措施所需费用的，责令限期改正；逾期未改正的，___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，建设单位未将保证安全施工的措施或者拆除工程的有关资料报送有关部门备案的，责令___，给予警告。

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，建设单位要求施工单位压缩合同约定的工期的，责令限期改正，处____万元以上____万元以下的罚款；造成重大安全事故，构成犯罪的，对直接责任人员，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，勘察单位、设计单位采用新结构、新材料、新工艺的建设工程和特殊结构的建设工程，设计单位未在设计中提出保障施工作业人员安全和预防生产安全事故的措施建议的，责令限期改正，处____万元以上_____万元以下的罚款；情节严重的，责令停业整顿，降低资质等级，直至吊销资质证书；造成重大安全事故，构成犯罪的，对直接责任人员，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，工程监理单位未对施工组织设计中的安全技术措施或者专项施工方案进行审查的，责令限期改正；逾期未改正的，责令停业整顿，并处____万元以上____万元以下的罚款；情节严重的，降低资质等级，直至吊销资质证书；造成重大安全事故，构成犯罪的，对直接责任人员，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，注册执业人员未执行法律、法规和工程建设强制性标准的，责令停止执业 ____ 个月以上____年以下；情节严重的，吊销执业资格证书，_____年内不予注册；造成重大安全事故的，终身不予注册；构成犯罪的，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，为建设工程提供机械设备和配件的单位，未按照安全施工的要求配备齐全有效的保险、限位等安全设施和装置的，责令限期改正，处合同价款____倍以上____倍以下的罚款；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，出租单位出租未经安全性能检测或者经检测不合格的机械设备和施工机具及配件的，责令停业整顿，并处_____万元以上_____万元以下的罚款；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，施工起重机械和整体提升脚手架、模板等自升式架设设施安装、拆卸单位未由专业技术人员现场监督的，责令限期改正，处_____万元以上_____万元以下的罚款；情节严重的，责令停业整顿，降低资质等级，直至吊销资质证书；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，施工单位挪用列入建设工程概算的安全生产作业环境及安全施工措施所需费用的，责令限期改正，处挪用费用_____以上_____以下的罚款；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建筑工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，施工单位未根据不同施工阶段和周围环境及季节、气候的变化，在施工现场采取相应的安全施工措施，或者在城市市区内的建设工程的施工现场未实行封闭围挡的，责令限期改正；逾期未改正的，责令停业整顿，并处_____万元以上_____万元以下的罚款；造成重大安全事故，构成犯罪的，对直接责任人员，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，施工单位使用未经验收或者验收不合格的施工起重机械和整体提升脚手架、模板等自升式架设设施的，责令限期改正；逾期未改正的，责令停业整顿，并处_____万元以上_____万元以下的罚款；情节严重的，降低资质等级，直至吊销资质证书；造成重大安全事故，构成犯罪的，对直接责任人员，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任；造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。___

违反《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定，施工单位的主要负责人、项目负责人未履行安全生产管理职责的，责令限期改正；逾期未改正的，责令施工单位停业整顿；造成重大安全事故、重大伤亡事故或者其他严重后果，构成犯罪的，依照刑法有关规定追究___。

根据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》 ，作业人员不服管理、违反规章制度和操作规程冒险作业造成重大伤亡事故或者其他严重后果，构成犯罪的，依照刑法有关规定追究___。

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___

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___