[多选题]坚持和完善社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度，必须毫不动摇巩固和发展公有制经济，必须毫不动摇鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展。这是因为，公有制经济和非公有制经济都是我国

正确答案 ：AB

经济社会发展的重要基础

社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分

解析：AB（经济社会发展的重要基础；社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分）

[多选题]应中国总理李克强的邀请，俄罗斯总理梅德韦杰夫、印度总理辛格和蒙古国总理阿勒坦呼亚格于2013年10月22日开始分别对中国进行正式访问。来自中国三个陆上邻国的领导人，在同一天开启中国之行，这样密集的双边访问在中国外交史上实属罕见。这一外交动向

正确答案 ：ACD

体现了中国经济发展的吸引力

反映了中国周边外交行动的延续和加速

顺应了互利共赢的时代潮流

解析：ACD（体现了中国经济发展的吸引力；反映了中国周边外交行动的延续和加速、顺应了互利共赢的时代潮流）

[多选题]土地、资本以及科技、知识、信息等生产要素参与价值分配表明

正确答案 ：AB

实质是生产要素所有权在经济上的实现

各种非劳动生产要素参与了社会财富的创造并且是价值创造的物质条件

解析：价值创造与价值分配是既有联系又有区别的范畴 价值创造属于生产领域的问题，而价值分配是属于分配领域的问题。价值创造是价值分配的前提和基础，没有价值创造也就没有价值分配；价值分配又不仅仅取决于价值创造。在实际经济生活中，价值分配首先是由生产资料所有制关系决定的，体现一定的生产关系。有什么样的生产资料所有制关系，就有什么样的分配关系。应该坚持马克思关于人的抽象劳动是价值的唯一源泉这一劳动价值论的基本观点。同时，要充分肯定科技、知识信息等新的生产要素在提高生产效率、促进生产力发展、增加使用价值和价值形成中的重要作用。

[单选题]It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

根据以下资料，回答下面的题目。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial .Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with . Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

正确答案 ：D

stood in favor of the states.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的推理引申能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词Paragraph 5和the Alien and Sedition, 就可以精确定位在第五段第二句话的最后，也就是回归到the Alien and Sedition法案的州特权，所以和法案有关联的就是选项D. 而且我们也不难发现，B和D是一对矛盾选项，通过阅读文章，排除D。

[单选题]根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial .Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with . Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim. {TS}Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

正确答案 ：C

overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的把握能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词 three provisions of Arizona定位到文中第二段。第一句提到Arizona计划的三个部分被推翻是让州和地方警察实施联邦移民[微博]法律。这句话没有相对应选项，所以看到后面一句，意思是宪法的规则是毋庸置疑的，它认为华盛顿本身就有建立一个统一的自然化的规则的权力，而且认为联邦法律优先于州法律。所以被推翻就是因为它超越了联邦移民法的权威。此题也可在第三段第二句话，因为它提到on the overturned provision, 意思是大部分人认为议会故意占据了领地，Arizona因此侵犯了联邦的享有特权的权力。所以，答案是B

查看原题 查看所有试题