下列属于公安机关人民警察权限的有（ ）。

根据《人民警察法》的规定，下列选项中属于公安机关人民警察职责的有（ ）。

对被判处（ ）的罪犯，由公安机关执行刑罚。

人民警察的纪律要求包括（ ）。

肖某打算毕业后报考人民警察职位，根据《人民警察法》的规定，关于其必须具备的条件说法正确的是（ ）。

公安机关的人民警察对严重危害社会治安秩序或者威胁公共安全的人员，可以（ ）。

民警有下列行为且不听制止，可能造成恶劣影响，可以对其采取禁闭措施的是（ ）。

下列属于人民警察的纪律要求的是（ ）。

根据《人民警察法》的规定，下列说法正确的是（ ）。

下列关于人民警察在执行职务中侵犯公民或者组织的合法权益造成损害的说法，不正确的是（ ）。

下列选项中，关于人民警察的违纪责任的说法正确的有（ ）。

对受处分的人民警察，按照国家有关规定，（ ）。

下列选项中，属于对人民警察的处分的有（ ）。

民警刘某认为其所在的公安局局长要求先行拘留某犯罪嫌疑人的命令有错误，以下做法正确的是（ ）。

下列关于人民警察对待上级的决定和命令的说法，正确的是（ ）。

不得担任人民警察的情形包括（ ）。

公民王某在一次抓捕逃犯行动中给予民警协助和支持，王某也因此受伤住院。根据《人民警察法》的规定，下列说法正确的是（ ）

倪某素知宋某家有钱，且每天白天只有一老妇看家，遂起抢劫意念。为使抢劫顺利，倪某先盗窃军用手枪1支，子弹10发，将枪、弹藏于身上，来到宋某家。适逢老妇偶然外出，倪某撬门入室，发现室内无人，于是窃得现金及其他财物总价值1万余元。正准备逃离时，老妇回来了，倪某被发现后逃离现场，正好遇到巡逻的民警陆某，倪某遂向陆某开枪，陆某见状，开枪将倪某击毙。下列情形说法正确的是（ ）。

下列符合使用武器的条件，人民警察可以直接使用武器的是（ ）。

下列关于人民警察违法使用警械、武器的表述，正确的有（ ）。

下列选项中，表述正确的有（ ）。

甲县公安局刑侦大队长王某带领侦查员在乙县抓捕杀人逃犯朱某时，遇到朱某开枪拒捕，开枪将朱某击伤。关于本案，以下说法正确的是（A,B,C,D）。

民警谢某在追捕一名盗窃犯罪嫌疑人过程中，眼看犯罪嫌疑人即将逃脱，情急之下开枪将其打成轻伤。以下说法正确的有（ ）。

公安民警在使用武器造成犯罪分子或者无辜人员伤亡后，应当（ ）。

人民警察应当立即停止使用武器的情形是（ ）。

民警宋某和杨某着警服在所辖区内巡查。当二人检查到某村时，发现一人手中持有一把猎枪，形迹可疑。宋某喊道："我是派出所的，你拿着枪干什么？站住！"对方没有站住，反而跑了起来，途中将猎枪丢掉，继续逃跑，宋某随即掏出枪朝其开了一枪，未击中，后又开了一枪，将此人当场打死。后经查证死者是该村村民朱某，当时在打猎（其无持枪证）。以下说法正确的是（ ）。

下列情形，民警可以依法使用武器的情形有（ ）。

民警甲、乙在巡逻中发现5名男子正在殴打被害人李某，甲、乙经警告无效，可以使用（ ）制止违法行为。

根据《人民警察使用警械和武器条例》的规定，人民警察使用警械和武器的基本原则有（ ）。

王某下岗在家，后又与妻子离婚，性情大变。为泄私愤，王某在家私自制造了大量炸药，并将炸药藏在床下。一日，王某突然将家中的门窗反锁，手持猎枪，并将制好的炸药点燃往街上扔，将过往的行人炸伤。当地公安机关接到报警后，立即组织警力进行处置。在劝说无效的情况下，当地警方采取以下措施：用高压水枪往王某家灌水，将炸药浇湿，同时组织人员对王某进行抓捕，在王某持枪拒捕的情况下，将王某击伤。关于使用高压水枪的说法正确的是（ ）。

甲、乙二人商定夜晚到公园附近抢钱。晚9时许，甲、乙二人到公园门口，见一中年人在买东西，遂进入商店，甲先喊了一声"叔叔"，中年人回头看甲时，乙趁机将其钱包（内有现金1000元）抢走。当中年人看到钱包被抢走时，才恍然明白过来，于是呼喊"抢劫"，被巡逻民警丁某发现，丁某拔枪追赶甲、乙二人，在追赶不上时，丁某开枪将甲、乙二人击伤。以下说法不正确的是（ ）。

下列装备属于驱逐性、制服性警械的有（ ）。

刘某欲与李某分手，李某不同意，将刘某拉扯到附近的加油站，情绪激动地挥舞着打火机，扬言要与刘某同归于尽。群众报警后，公安机关派员赶到现场处置。下列选项表述正确的有（ ）。

下列违反《人民警察使用警械和武器条例》规定的情形是（ ）。

可以使用驱逐性、制服性警械的情形有（ ）。

人民警察遇有下列（ ）情形，经警告无效的，可以使用警棍、催泪弹、高压水枪、特种防暴枪等驱逐性、制服性警械。

对以暴力方法抗拒或者阻碍人民警察依法履行职责，未危及人民警察生命安全的，可以使用（ ）。

陈某与武某有矛盾。一天晚上，陈某纠集了谭某等十余人乘出租车寻找武某。22时许，陈某、谭某等一伙人与武某等3人相遇，随即发生持械斗殴，武某的头部、臀部被砍、戳伤，生命垂危。此时，下班经过此地的民警李某发现后，喊道："我是公安局的，不许再打！"但双方见李某仅一人并未收敛。李某为震慑犯罪分子朝天鸣枪警告。谭某持长刀冲上来，砍中李某的左手。李某果断开枪将谭某击倒，陈某等歹徒四处逃窜。李某及时拦车将谭某送医院抢救，谭某因肾脏、胰腺被击伤大出血，抢救无效死亡。以下说法正确的是（ ）。

下列属于约束性警械的有（ ）。

政法各部门共同致力于公平正义目标的实现，应贯彻的刑事基本原则有（ ）。

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___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___