“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___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

54.使用自动站间闭塞法行车时，列车凭出站信号机或线路所通过信号机显示的___的信号进入区间。J317

55.使用半自动闭塞法行车时，列车凭出站信号机或___通过信号机显示的允许运行的信号进入区间。J319

56.列车是指编成的车列并挂有机车及规定的___。J331

57.司机在列车运行中，遇有信号显示不明或危及行车和人身安全时，应立即采取___措施。J335

58.列车运行途中，遇列尾装置、___、列车运行监控装置发生故障时，司机应立即使用列车无线调度通信设备报告车站值班员或列车调度员，并根据实际情况掌握速度运行。J335

59.司机在列车运行中，应随时检查机车总风缸、___的压力。J335

60.装备机车综合无线通信设备的机车，开车前司机要选定机车综合无线通信设备通信模式和___。J335

61.在GSM-R区段运行时，机车综合无线通信设备、GSM-R手持终端按规定注册___，并确认正确。J335

62.司机在列车运行中，应彻底瞭望，确认信号，执行___制度，严格按信号显示要求行车，确保列车安全正点。J335

63.机车信号、列车无线调度通信设备、列车运行监控装置和列尾装置必须全程运转，严禁擅自___。J335

64.列车在区间使用紧急制动阀停车后再开车时，司机必须检查试验列车制动主管的___状态，确认列车完整，具备开车条件后，方可起动列车。J335

65.等会列车时，不准关闭空气压缩机，并应按规定显示___。J335

66.改按天气恶劣难以辨认信号的办法行车时，列车按___的显示运行。J338

67.改按天气恶劣难以辨认信号的办法行车,当接近地面信号机时，司机应确认地面信号，遇地面信号与机车信号显示不一致时，应立即采取___措施。J338

68.天气恶劣无法辨认出站___信号机显示时，在列车具备发车条件后，司机凭车站值班员列车无线调度通信设备的发车通知起动列车，在确认出站___信号机___后,再行加速。J338

69.列尾装置故障时，车辆乘务员在列车___、停车站进站前和出站后，应按规定与司机核对列车尾部风压。J340

70.旅客列车改为单管供风跨局运行时，由铁路总公司发布调度命令通知有关铁路局，按单管供风办理，直至___。J342

71.机车乘务组以外人员登乘机车时，除铁路机车运用管理规则指定的人员外，须凭___登乘。J346

72.列车退行的限制速度是___km/h。J347

73.通过显示黄色灯光的信号机及位于定位的预告信号机时，列车运行限制速度为在___信号机前能停车的速度。J347

74.向站内有车线接车时，列车应在进站信号机外停车，由接车人员向司机通知事由后，以___将列车领入站内。J357

75.列车进站后，应停于接车线___内方。在设有出站___信号机的线路，列车头部不得越过出站___信号机。J358

76.货物列车在站停车时，司机必须使列车保持___状态。J361

77.货物列车在站停车时，司机必须使列车保持制动状态___。发车前，司机施行缓解，确认___具备后，方可起动列车。 J361

78.列车在车站发车前，司机必须确认___及发车信号显示正确后，方可起动列车。J362

79.进站信号机及线路所通过信号机发生不能关闭的故障时，应将灯光熄灭或___。J364

80.装有进路表示器或发车线路表示器的出站信号机，当该表示器不良时，由办理发车人员通知司机后，列车可凭___的显示出发。J365

81.列车在区间被迫停车不能继续运行时，司机应立即使用列车无线调度通信设备通知两端站___及车辆乘务员___，报告___和停车位置，根据需要迅速请求救援。J366

82.对已请求救援的列车，不得再行移动，并按规定对列车进行___。J366

83.列车分部运行，机车进入区间挂取遗留车辆时，应从车列前方距离不小于___米处防护。J368

84.一切电话中断后发出的列车___，应于停车后，立即从列车___按线路最大速度等级规定的列车紧急制动距离位置处防护。J368

85.在不得已情况下，列车必须分部运行时，司机应报告前方站___，并做好遗留车辆的___和防护工作。J369

86.列车发生火灾、爆炸时，须立即停车,停车地点应尽量避开___、长大隧道等，选择便于旅客疏散的地点。J370

87.列车运行途中司机接到因热轴需停车检查的通知后，应采用___停车，列车停车后由车辆乘务员负责检查，无车辆乘务员的由司机确认能否继续安全运行，或就近站甩车处理。J371

88.向封锁区间开行救援列车时，司机接到救援命令后，必须认真确认，命令不清、___不明确时，不准动车。J374

89.遇有施工引导接车并正线通过时，准许列车司机凭___手信号的显示，以不超过60 km/h速度进站。J381

90.向施工封锁区间开行路用列车时，列车进入封锁区间的行车凭证为___。J382

91.路用列车应由施工单位指派胜任人员携带列车无线调度通信设备值乘，并在区间协助___作业。J383

92.路用列车或施工机械进入施工地段时，应在施工防护人员显示的停车手信号前停车，根据施工负责人的要求，按___办法，进入指定地点。J383

93.列车接近作业标时，司机须___，注意瞭望。J397