揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

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。

5：有权机关直接到各支行进行查询、冻结、扣划时，有权机关查询、冻结、扣划完成后，支行于15日内向反洗钱牵头管理部门提交《建议调整申请表》，经反洗钱牵头管理部门负责人批准后，在反洗钱系统内将该客户等级调为高风险

6：有权机关直接到各支行进行查询、冻结、扣划时，有权机关查询、冻结、扣划完成后，支行于10日内向反洗钱牵头管理部门提交《高风险个人客户认定表》或《高风险单位客户认定表》，经反洗钱牵头管理部门负责人批准后，在反洗钱系统内将该客户等级调为高风险

7：《高风险个人客户认定表》、《高风险单位客户认定表》以及调整为高风险客户的《客户风险等级建议调整申请表》等资料的保管期限为应自认定或调整为高风险客户当年起算，至少5年

8：各支行反洗钱工作小组，成立及变更均需向反洗钱牵头管理部门报备

9：对恐怖活动组织及恐怖活动人员与他人共同拥有或者控制的资产采取冻结措施，但该资产在采取冻结措施时无法分割或者确定份额的，各支行应当一并采取冻结措施

10：审计部门每年至少应对本行开展两次反洗钱内部审计

11：定期存款的本金或者本金加全部或者部分利息转为在同一机构开立的同一户名下的另一账户内的活期存款时，可以免报大额交易报告

12：系统未提取到，按照规定应上报而未上报的大额交易，本行各营业机构应在交易发生后的10个工作日内通过手工方式增加大额交易

13：对既属于大额交易又属于可疑交易的交易，本行应当分别提交大额交易报告和可疑交易报告

14：客户身份资料，自业务关系结束当年或者一次性交易记账当年计起至少保存10年

15：同一介质上存有不同保存期限客户身份资料或者交易记录的，应当按最长期限保存

16：客户要求变更姓名或者名称、身份证件或者身份证明文件种类、身份证件号码、注册资本、经营范围、法定代表人或者负责人的，本行各营业机构应当重新识别客户

17：对代理多人开立账户或经常使用他人账户进行交易的，应当进行客户身份尽职调查，并考虑提交大额交易报告

18：发现已经开立的账户有假名情形的，应终止业务关系，并提交可疑交易报告

19：本行为外国政要客户提供开立账户服务时，应当报本行行长批准后方可开立

20：自然人客户的“身份基本信息”中，客户的住所地与经常居住地不一致的，登记客户的住所地

21：支行各营业网点反洗钱工作人员由营业网点负责人担任

22：反洗钱内部审计以风险导向审计理念为基础，只能采用现场审计方式开展反洗钱内部审计工作

23：属于艺术品、珠宝古董批发和零售行业的客户，可评定为低风险客户

24：睡眠户可评定为低风险客户

25：本行发现恐怖活动组织及恐怖活动人员拥有或者控制的资产，应当立即采取冻结措施

26：当自然人客户由他人代理办理人民币单笔5万元（含）以上或者外币等值1万元美元（含）以上的现金存款业务时，如果存款人因合理理由无法提供被代理人有效身份证件或者身份证明文件，各营业机构可参照有关一次性金融服务时履行客户身份识别的要求，只对代理人开展相关客户身份识别工作

27：按照账户分类管理有关要求,目前本行Ⅲ类户任一时点余额为1000元, Ⅲ类户非绑定账户转入、转出、消费和缴费日累计限额为5000元，年累计限额为10万元

28：目前本行由前台柜面人员内部操作对已核准或已备案的单位账户进行启用，启用后即可入金，无需客户再到柜面办理

29：一般户在柜面综合前端用1058交易码启用时，若0天启用，提供柜员通过人行账户管理系统打印的开户信息即可

30：单位结算账户启用前账户状态为不收不付，启用后为只收不付状态，3个自然日后方可对外付款

31：基本户在柜面综合前端用1058交易码启用时，授权提交柜员通过人行账户管理系统打印的开户信息即可

32：银行在办理开户业务时，发现个人冒用他人身份开立账户的，应当及时向公安机关报案并将被冒用的身份证件移交公安机关

33：对于被全国企业信用信息公示系统列入“严重违法失信企业名单”，以及经银行核实单位注册地址不存在或者虚构经营场所的单位，银行和支付机构不得为其开户

34：银行应当至少每半年排查企业是否属于严重违法企业，情况属实的，应当在3个月内暂停其业务，逐步清理

35：对存在法定代表人或者负责人对单位经营规模及业务背景等情况不清楚、注册地和经营地均在异地等异常情况的单位，银行应当加强对单位开户意愿的核查。银行应当对法定代表人或者负责人面签并留存视频、音频资料等，开户初期原则上可以开通非柜面业务

1：能辨别面额，票面剩余面积二分之一（含）以上、四分之三（不含）以下，其图案、文字能按原样连接的残缺、污损人民币，应向持有人按原面额的一半兑换

2：特殊残缺、污损人民币（以下简称残缺、污损人民币）剩余面积是指票面图案、文字、纸张能按原样连接的实物面积，包括与票面原样连接的炭化、变形部分。不能按原样连接的部分，仍作为票面剩余面积计算

3：柜员接到客户兑换残缺、污损人民币时，无需通过残缺损人民币兑换仪进行测量

4：当客户对认定的兑换结果有异议时，柜员应主动告知客户可向人民银行济源市中心支行申请鉴定

5：当客户对我行认定的兑换结果有异议时，并申请人民银行济源市中心支行鉴定时，柜员只需退回该残缺污损人民币即可

6：日初开始营业时，1元以下面额人民币备付金各券别不少于200张（枚），其它网点不少于50张（枚）

7：日初开始营业时，1元以下面额人民币备付金各券别不少于300张（枚），其它网点不少于50张（枚）

8：《金融机构特殊残缺污损人民币兑换单》一式三联，第一联粘贴在专用袋上，第二联金融机构留存，第三联交客户

9：各网点应有偿为公众兑换残损人民币，不得出现相互推诿、拒绝兑换、公众投诉等情况