___是人们对祖国的一种直接感受和情绪体验。

现实情况表明，在___背景下，发展中国家不仅要面对经济方面的挑战，而且也必然面对政治和文化上的挑战。

在经济全球化时代，之所以大力弘扬爱国主义，是因为___

中华民族精神源远流长，包含着丰富的内容，其中，夸父追日、大禹治水、愚公移山、精卫填海等动人的传说，体现的是中华民族精神的___

___是进一步解放和发展生产力的必然要求。

推进两岸关系发展和祖国统一大业，必须坚持___

在当今时代，维护世界和平，维护国家的安全、促进国家统一和发展，需要建立强大、巩固的___

___是指一个国家和民族对国防建设的目的、内容、途径和重要性等问题的认识，它主要包括国防忧患意识、国防目标意识、国防价值意识、国防责任意识、国防法制意识和国防献身意识等。

中华民族的爱国主义传统源远流长，内涵极为丰富。其中“先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐”所体现出来的中华民族爱国主义优良传统是___

以下关于爱国主义与拥护祖国统一具有一致性的正确说法是___

在中华民族的历史上，从戚继光抗击倭寇到郑成功收复台湾，从三元里人民抗英到全民族抗日战争等，这些都表现了中华民族爱国主义优良传统中___

下列哪项体现了爱国主义精神___

在经济全球化的条件下，___仍然是民族存在的最高组织形式，是国际社会活动中的独立主体。

爱国应当是一种理性的行为，不是简单的情感表达，要讲原则、守法律，以___的方式来表达爱国行为。

爱国主义与狭隘民族主义的主要区别在于___

一个国家只有拥有强大的科技创新能力，才能有效地应对激烈的国际竞争。要把提高___摆在重要位置，大力推进科技创新，实现科学技术的跨越式发展，使科学技术成为我国经济社会发展的强大推动力量，不断为建设创新型国家奠定坚实基础。

每一个中国公民都要把国家的安全、荣誉和利益放在高于一切的地位，与祖国同呼吸共命运。当祖国的领土和主权受到外来侵略时，自觉地担负起保卫祖国的神圣职责；当国家的利益受到损害时，同一切损害国家利益的行为做斗争；当个人利益与国家利益发生矛盾时，个人利益应当服从___

我国___明确规定，保卫祖国、抵抗侵略是中华人民共和国每一个公民的神圣职责。

要贯彻实施___，以最大的诚意、尽最大的努力争取和平统一的前景，同时绝不允许“台独”分裂势力以任何名义、任何方式把台湾从祖国分裂出去。不管国际形势如何变化，中华民族实现国家统一的决心和信心，是不可动摇的。

人有地域和信仰的不同，但不应有差别的是___

创新是一个民族进步的灵魂，国家兴旺发达的动力，政党永葆生机的源泉，创新包括理论创新、制度创新、科技创新、文化创新以及其它方面的创新，其中___创新是社会发展和变革的先导。

科学没有国界，但科学家有___

创新是一个民族进步的灵魂，国家兴旺发达的动力，政党永葆生机的源泉，创新包括理论创新、制度创新、科技创新、___以及其它方面的创新。

___植根于中华大地，深深地印在中国人的民族意识中，是中华民族的立身之本。

___不仅表现在中华民族各兄弟民族之间以和为贵、携手共进等方面，而且表现在与世界上其他民族的友好交往、休戚与共上。

___贯穿于中华民族社会生活的各个领域，体现在中华民族德行的各个方面，鲜明地体现了中华民族的民族性格和道德精神。

增强国防观念，不仅是保障国防安全的需要，也是增强民族___和向心力的“粘合剂”。

爱国主义的落脚点和归宿是___

维护___和领土完整，是国家的核心利益。

日本政要祭拜所谓的“靖国神社”，本质上属于___

___制度的实行，对于维护和巩固祖国的统一，维护各民族的利益和权利，促进各民族的共同奋斗和共同繁荣发展，发挥了极其重要的作用。

真正的爱国者，在任何时候、任何情况下都要把___放在第一位，把民族自尊心和自豪感体现在爱国的实际行动中。

应充分认识和尊重人类文化的___，虚心学习和借鉴别国的长处和经验，并积极承担国际责任，为世界的和平与发展做出贡献。

阿尔伯特·哈伯德曾经说过：“如果说，智慧和勤奋像金子一样珍贵的话，那么还有一种东西更为珍贵，那就是忠诚。”检验一个人对祖国忠诚程度的试金石是___

“苟利国家生死以，岂因祸福避趋之”、“鞠躬尽瘁，死而后已”、“捐躯赴国难，视死忽如归”反映的中华民族爱国主义优良传统是___

邓小平指出，对香港地区的人民来说，“爱国者的标准是，尊重自己民族，诚心诚意拥护祖国恢复行使对香港的主权，不损害香港的繁荣和稳定。只要具备这些条件，不管他们相信资本主义，还是相信封建主义，甚至相信奴隶主义，都是爱国者。我们不要求他们都赞成中国的社会主义制度，只要求他们爱祖国，爱香港。”这说明___

在五千多年的发展史中，中华民族形成了以爱国主义为核心的团结统一、爱好和平、勤劳勇敢、自强不息的伟大民族精神。其中。中华民族创造一个又一个人间奇迹的重要精神动力是___

《周易》曰：“天行健，君子自强不息”。自古以来，自强不息就是中华民族精神的重要内容。下列选项充分体现了这一精神的是___

邓小平曾告诫我们：“谈到人格，但不要忘记还有一个国格。特别是像我们这样第三世界的发展中国家，没有民族自尊心，不珍惜自己民族的独立，国家是立不起来的”。这说明，自觉维护国家利益就要___

不同时代有不同时代的任务，这一任务反映到爱国主义的内容上就是特定时代条件下爱国主义的主题，这说明爱国主义___

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___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___