国务院期货监督管理机构应当承担投资者投诉处理的首要责任。（  ）

根据我国新课程改革理念，学生在教育教学过程中处于主导地位。()

心理健康和不健康之间有明确的界限。

【背景资料】
 某施工企业承包了一段36. 8km的四车道高速公路沥青混凝土路面工程，路面单幅宽11.25m，路面结构形式为：基层为两层18cm的石灰粉煤灰稳定碎石;底基层为一层18cm的石灰粉煤灰稳定碎石;沥青混凝土面层为7cm的下面层，6cm的中面层和5cm的SMA表面层，桥上只铺5cm的SMA表面层，隧道内为水泥混凝土路面。
 项目经理部人员进场后，完成了经理部的建设和设备的进场工作。施工平面布置示意图如下图所示。
 
施工平面布置示意图
合同规定沥青材料由业主提供，地方材料由施工单位自采。材料管理人员在查看过料场、进行了价格比选后，就开始进料。
项目经理部按照各项要求，在完成了一系列的准备工作后，开始施工石灰粉煤灰稳定碎石底基层。施工中，施工人员发现其中一段800m长的底基层出现了大量裂缝和破损，经检查是由于路基质量差所致，路面施工单位拟向路基施工单位提出索赔。

【背景资料】某市政公司承建某半地下水池工程，内部平面净尺寸为15m*15m，设计水深6m。现浇钢筋混凝土结构，混凝土结构的设计强度为C40，抗渗等级P10。底板厚度1.0m，顶板厚度0.6m。由于地下水位较高，需设置抗浮灌注桩。设计结构图如下：

事件一：批准的施工方案明确施工工序如下：
灌注桩成孔→灌注桩吊放钢筋笼→灌注桩浇筑混凝土→①→基坑放坡开挖→②→浇筑混凝土垫层→底板施工→③→顶板施工→④→池壁外防水层施工→池壁保护层施工→回填土
事件二：侧壁浇筑采取外模一次到顶，内模分段随浇随支；对拉螺栓采取圆形止水环，止水环和对拉螺栓点焊固定。
事件三：监理要求对施工缝等薄弱位置采取妥善的防水处理措施。
事件四：满水试验过程中，施工单位确定了注水次数；并按照规范计算了注满时的浸湿面积。
事件五：顶板施工采用搭设满堂支架现浇施工。

【背景资料】
某承包人承担了一新建中型泵站建筑安装工程，其编制的泵站建筑安装工程内容及工程量表见表1。开工前，发包人按签约合同价的10%向承包人支付工程预付款，工程预付款的扣回与还清按

计算，其中F_1＝20%， F_2 ＝90%。该承包人根据施工合同，开工前，绘制了网络进度计划（如图2所示），并提交监理人批准。


工程如期开工，施工中发生了如下事件：

事件1：在第4个月末检查进度时，A工作和B工作已完成，C工作完成43.5万元的工作量，E工作还未开始，F工作完成36万元的工作量。

 事件2：项目部进行进度偏差分析，为保证合同工期目标实现，按照费用增加最少原则，调整了计划，新计划上报批准并按此组织实施。

事件3：D工作是该工程的重点，对该工作进度情况进行了定期跟踪检查，并对有关数据进行了统计，D工作进度曲线如图3所示。
事件4：5月份经监理人确认的承包人工程款为280万元。

【背景资料】

某水电站厂房为现浇钢筋混凝土结构。监理工程师批准的施工网络计划如图13-2 所示(图中持续时间单位为月)。

该工程施工合同工期为18个月。合同约定，土方工程单价为16元/m³,土方工程量估算为22000m³;混凝土工程量估算为1800m³,单价为320元/m³;当土方或混凝土的任何一项实际完成工程量超出《工程量清单》所列工程量的15%时，则超出15%部分的结算单价可进行调整，调整系数为0.9。在工程进行到第四个月时，业主方要求承包商增加一项工作K,经协商其持续时间为2个月，安排在 D工作结束后、F工作开始前完成，其土方量为3500m³,混凝土工程量为 200m³。

下列不适用紧急避险的情形有(   )。

（三）甲公司成立于2021年10月20日，法定代表人为李某。10月25日，甲公司财务人员赵某持有关资料到A银行开立基本存款账户。11月1日，甲公司从乙公司购进一批价值 30万元的货物，采用支票方式付款。12月5日，甲公司向B银行申请贷款，B银行审查符合贷款条件后向其发放贷款200万元。
要求：
根据上述资料，不考虑其他因素，分析回答下列小题。
2.甲公司向乙公司签发支票，其在支票上的下列签章中，不符合票据法律制度规定的是 ( )。

关于丁公司附条件背书在票据上效力的下列表述中，正确的是 ( )。

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. I came to recognize various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. (46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.

Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled ‘The Natural Selection of Bad Science’, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: (47) nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then, count the number.

(48) Attempts have been made to curb this tendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account. (49) This would be reasonable enough if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favors.

Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great. (50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science.