案例一

【背景资料】梁玉市政集团承建城市主干路新建工程，道路起点桩号为K0+000，终点桩号为K1+500。采用水泥稳定砂基层厚度300mm宽度10000mm。面层厚度120mm，下面层为30mmAC-25，中面层为40mmAC-16，上面层为50mm的OGFC路面。设计断面图如下图所示：

 

事件一：施工单位进场后发现路基填方范围有多处鱼塘，采取对软土层彻底处理后回填CBR符合设计要求的材料分层回填压实。

事件二：施工单位根据图纸计算了水泥稳定砂基层的理论方量，并按照1.05的松铺系数进行实际备料。

事件三：面层施工分上中下三层分别摊铺，摊铺后一并压实成型。上面层采取轮胎压路机碾压。压实遍数根据经验确定。

【背景资料】某高速公路第五施工合同段地处城郊，主要工程为路基填筑施工。其中K48+010～K48+328段原为路基土方填筑，因当地经济发展和交通规划需要，经各方协商，决定将该段路基填筑变更为（5×20+3×36+5×20m）预应力钢筋混凝土箱梁桥，箱梁混凝土标号为C40。变更批复后，承包人组织施工，上部结构采用满堂式钢管支架现浇施工，泵送混凝土。其施工工艺：地基处理→支架系统搭设→（A）→安装底模→（B）→调整标高、安装侧模→底板、腹板钢筋加工安装及预应力管道安装→内膜安装→顶板钢筋加工安装、端模及锚垫板安装→预应力筋制作安装→浇筑箱梁混凝土→养护→预应力张拉→孔道压浆、封锚→拆模及支架。
   事件1：支架施工时，施工单位考虑了结构本身需要的预拱度和施工需要的预拱度两部分。其中对施工预拱度设置考虑了以下因素：①模板、支架承受施工荷载引起的弹性变形；②受载后由于杆件接头的挤压和卸落装置压缩而产生的非弹性形变；
   事件2：在箱梁混凝土现浇施工时，梁体混凝土在顺桥向宜从高处向低处进行浇筑，在横桥向宜对称浇筑。混凝土浇筑完成后，洒水养护7d。
   事件3：张拉预应力筋，：采用“双控法”控制，余露预应力筋采用电弧切割，并留30mm外漏长度，箱梁采用洒水覆盖养护；箱梁混凝土强度达到规定要求后，进行孔道清理、预应力张拉压浆，当灰浆从预应力孔道另一端流出后立即终止。
   事件4：箱梁现浇施工正值夏季高温，为避免箱梁出现构造裂缝，保证箱梁质量，施工单位提出了以下三条措施：（1）选用优质的水泥和骨料；（2）合理设计混凝土配合比，改善骨料级配、降低水灰比、掺和粉煤灰等；（3）严格控制混凝土搅拌时间和振捣时间。

幼儿是成长档案袋的主体，无论是档案的建立、形成，还是制作，都应该让幼儿参与。 (  )

某日深夜，甲与乙共同前往丙的住处实施盗窃行为。根据分工，乙在丙家楼下望风，甲入室窃取财物。甲进入丙家后，见丙的妻子在床上熟睡，便对其实施了强奸。对本案应如何处理？（   ）

下列关于叛逃罪的说法中正确的是（   ）。

企业代扣代缴的个人所得税，应通过“其他应付款”科目核算。（   ）

【背景资料】某运输大巷断面半圆拱形，净宽4.2m，净高4.5m，采用锚网索支护。巷道整体处于软岩地层中，主要包含弱胶结泥岩、砂质泥岩以及裂隙较为发育的中细砂岩。地质资料显示，巷道掘进会揭露DF209断层破碎带，宽度7.0m、倾角73°，且具有一定导水性，静水压力3.8MPa。
巷道施工过程中发生了如下事件：
事件1：巷道掘进26m后出现围岩变形严重现象，围岩变形监测发现巷道顶板沉降最大值达350mm，且巷道底鼓严重，监理单位要求加强巷道围岩支护。
事件2：巷道掘进邻近DF209断层破碎带时，施工单位编制了过断层破碎带的安全技术措施：
（1）用锚杆钻机进行超前探水钻孔，巷道顶底板各布置1个超前探测钻孔；
（2）采用超前支护和深孔帷幕注浆对断层破碎带进行超前堵水及加固。在技术措施审查会上，监理单位认为过断层破碎带采用超前注浆堵水方案可行，但超前探水做法不妥，要求施工单位调整。
事件3：施工单位聘用建造师王某担任项目部经理，并向建设单位提交了王某的劳动合同，但建设单位认为不符合要求，不予确认王某履行项目经理职责，导致施工延误十天，产生窝工费10万元。

（2）该首饰商城销售套装礼盒应缴纳的消费税为（）万元。

资产负债表日，企业持有的交易性金融资产因公允价值变动而形成的损益应计入投资收益。（）

郭某为甲证券公司甲市营业部总经理，负责营业部全面工作。孙某为甲证券公司甲市营业部客户经理，负责开发及维护客户。2022年6月，孙某向客户胡某介绍甲市营业部有保本理财产品，并承诺保本保收益，胡某在甲市营业部开具证券账户，并向账户内转款人民币1568余万元。郭某、孙某向胡某索要了账户交易密码。随后，在未通知胡某也未取得其同意的情况下，郭某、孙某自行使用胡某账户交易密码进行交易。2022年7月至2022年8月，郭某、孙某擅自运用胡某证券账户进行交易，造成胡某证券账户亏损人民币1080万元，为甲证券公司赚取交易手续费121万元。案发后，郭某、孙某返还胡某220万元。

[A] These tools can help you win every argument--not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments--from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding--then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.

[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.

[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions--like, say, tennis games. Paris of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way to get the best of an argument--and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives--and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.

[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy  to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win--in one way.

[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes,” and I yell. “No,” neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.