对农产品采取特别保障措施的条件包括（   ）。

2016年12月，某法院以欺诈发行证券罪作出判决，依法判处乙公司法定代表人张某与财务负责人胡某有期徒刑。

甲、乙均为吸毒人员，且关系密切。乙因买不到毒品，多次让甲将自己吸食的毒品转让几克给乙，甲每次均以购买价转让毒品给乙，未从中牟利。关于本案，下列哪些选项是错误的？(   )

【背景资料】
某中型水闸工程施工招标文件按《水利水电工程标准施工招标文件》（2009年版）编制。已标价工程量清单由分类分项工程量清单、措施项目清单、其他项目清单、零星工作项目清单组成。其中闸底板C20混凝土是工程量清单的一个子目（单位：100m³）。其中混凝土的配料、拌制、运输和浇筑过程中的损耗，由发包人按《工程量清单》相应项目有效工程量的每立方米工程单价支付。
事件1：A单位在投标截止时间前提交了投标文件。评标过程中，A单位发现工程量清单有算术性错误，遂以投标文件澄清方式提出修改，招标代理机构认为不妥。
事件2：招标人收到评标报告后对评标结果进行公示，A单位对评标结果提出异议。
事件3：经过评标，B单位中标。工程实施过程中，B单位认为闸底板C20混凝土强度偏低，建议将C20变更为C25。经协商后，监理人将闸底板混凝土自C20变更为C25。B单位按照变更估计原则，以现行材料价格为基础提交了新单价，监理人认为应按投标文件所附材料预算价格为计算基础提交新单价。
本工程在实施过程中，涉及工程变更的双方往来函件包括（不限于）：
①变更意向书，
②书面变更建议，
③变更指示，
④变更报价书，
⑤撤销变更意向书，
⑥难以实施变更的原因和依据，
⑦变更实施方案等。

（一）

2019年11月1日，甲企业开具一张金额80万元，见票后6个月付款的商业承兑汇票(已承兑)给乙企业，承兑人为甲企业，用于支付设备款，丙企业在该汇票的正面记载了保证事项（未记载被保证人）。乙企业取得汇票后，将该汇票背书转让给了丁企业。汇票到期后，丁企业于2020年5月5日委托银行收款时，得知甲企业的存款账户不足支付。银行将付款人未付票款通知书和该商业承兑汇票一同交给丁企业。丁企业遂向乙企业要求付款。

要求:根据上述资料，不考虑其他因素，分析回答下列小题。

若乙企业向丁企业履行清偿义务后，因管理不善导致票据丢失，则乙企业可采取的票据保全措施包括(     )。

股票指数期货和股票期货的合约标的物是不同的，股票期货合约的对象是单一的股票，而股指期货合约的对象是代表一组股票价格的指数。(    )

下列有关本票，说法正确的是 ( )。

【背景资料】
某综合利用水利枢纽工程位于我国西北某省，枯水期流量很少；坝型为土石坝，黏土心墙防渗；坝址处河道较窄，岸坡平缓。工程中的某分部工程包括坝基开挖、坝基防渗及坝体填筑，该分部工程验收结论为“本分部工程划分为80个单位工程，其中合格30个，优良50个，主要单位工程、重要隐蔽工程及关键部位的单元工程质量优良，且未发生过质量事故；中间产品质量全部合格，其中混凝土拌和物质量达到优良，故本分部工程优良。”

宪法规定，人民法院、人民检察院和公安机关处理刑事案件，应当（            ），以确保准确有效地执行法律。

背景：某施工单位承担了一煤矿的锚喷支护巷道施工任务。该巷道设计锚杆间排距1m，每断面布置锚杆9根，采用树脂药卷锚固，每根锚杆用1支药卷。设计锚杆抗拔力为100kN，喷射混凝土厚度100mm。施工中，建设单位进行了中间验收，检查200m巷道，有关锚杆部分的检查记录如下：
1.树脂药卷检查
树脂药卷产品出厂合格证、出厂检验报告、进场复验报告齐全，其中复验药卷抽查了2组，结论合格。
2.锚杆检查
(1)锚杆产品出厂合格证、出厂检验报告、进场复验报告齐全，其中复验锚杆抽查了1组，结论合格。
(2)锚杆间排距和抗拔力检查：班组相关检查记录齐全；中间验收对锚杆间排距共抽查了3个检查点（断面），其中第2个检查点（断面）9根锚杆间排距检测结果分别为920mm. 960mm. 1010mm.、 880mm.、890mm、 1020mm.、1090mm、1010mm.锚杆抗拔按规定进行了抽查。
(3)锚杆孔深、锚杆方向、锚杆外露长度的检查方式和数据均符合要求。

[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.