题目内容
研究者测定了10名糖尿病患者的血糖水平(mmol/L)和胰岛素水平(mU/ L)的数据，若研究血糖水平Y对胰岛素水平X的数量依存关系，可进行何种分析
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
阅读下面短文，回答文后问题。 《正气歌》云：“时穷节乃见。”其实，在平凡的生活里又何尝不显现出精神的分野。 就拿做诗来说，同为咏“寒食”，苏东坡诗云：“梨花淡白柳叶青，柳絮飞时花满城。惆怅东栏一株雪，人生看得几清明” 贾似道诗云：“寒食家家插柳枝，留春春亦不多时，人生有酒须当醉，青冢儿孙几个知” 苏诗抒发的是时光易逝壮志未酬的感叹，贾诗吐露的则是时光易逝及时行乐的真情。贾诗不为不工，然而精神自贱，格调安得不卑 真正的精神重于九鼎，清于漱玉。在革命者的身上，躯壳可以委沟壑，精神却长留天地。读林觉民烈士《与妻书》，至今犹觉字字沉雄，句句殷红。 ①他爱他的妻，然而“吾充吾爱汝之心，助天下人爱其所爱，所以敢先汝而死，不顾汝也”。舍家赴难的烈士当然也有个人的得失，但不忘“以天下人为念”，使“有无”、“得失”的价值观发生了逆转，其境界之高，难与俗人道也。 ②方志敏在《清贫》中写了被俘的情景，敌士兵用手榴弹威胁他拿出钱来： “你骗谁，像你当大官的人会没有钱!”这就是他们的逻辑。 ③但是方志敏却使他们失望了。他说到自己的“财产”，几套旧褂裤，几双线袜，且已交与妻子放在深山坞里保藏着。对此，他不无骄傲地“自嘲”，“但我说出那几件传世宝，岂不要叫那些富翁们齿冷三天!” ④今天，江山已改，远非“越穷越光荣”的时代可比，然而在社会主义现代化的建设中，人的精神仍然面临着新的考验。有人把共产主义精神当作束缚自我的锁链，或者把利己主义的招牌公然挂在门楣上，或者偷偷地违法乱纪，贪污受贿，任灵魂锈蚀、腐烂。 这一部分现代文阅读的材料在节选时略有改动。节选的这一段文字，重点谈的是人的“精神”问题，革命者的“精神”重于九鼎，长留天地；无论是过去，还是今天，人的“精神”都面临着考验。 对文中提到的诗文及作者，在此作些简要的介绍。 《正气歌》：五言古诗，南宋文天祥作于至元十八年(1281)，当时文天样被囚于元大都(今北京)，幽暗潮湿的土室已两年，经受了严酷的牢狱生活的考验，也拒绝了元人多方的劝降，他认为支撑自己坚贞不屈的精神力量就是纵贯中华历史的浩然正气，于是写作了《正气歌》，诗中的“正气”表现的是一种精神力量，是中华民族崇尚气节操守传统的集中体现。 “寒食”：中国传统节令之一，在清明前一或二日。传说春秋时晋国介之推辅佐晋公子重耳(晋文公)出亡归国后，隐于山中，重耳欲逼他出山，下令烧山，之推抱树而死，重耳为悼念之推，于是禁止在之推死日生火煮食，只能吃冷食。以后相沿成习，称为寒食。 苏东坡(1037—1101)：名轼，字子瞻，东坡居士为其号，四川眉山人。学识渊博，多才多艺，与父苏洵、苏辙合称“三苏”，“唐宋八大家”之一。 贾似道(1213—1275)：字师宪，台州人，因其姐为贵妃，故宫至左丞相，南宋时有名之奸相。 林觉民(1886—1911) 字意洞，号抖飞，又号天外生。福建闽侯(今福州)人。黄花冈七十二烈士之一。 《与妻书》：又称《绝笔书》，系林觉民烈士于起义前三天写给其夫人陈意映女士的，信中充满了牺牲一己，为争取全国同胞自由幸福的革命精神。 方志敏(1900—1935)：中国无产阶级革命家，江西弋阳人。1923年加人中国共产党，1935年1月因叛徒出卖而被捕，在狱中坚贞不屈，7月英勇就义，遗著有《可爱的中国》、《狱中纪实》等。 下面一句话是从文中抽出来的，把它插回到原来的位置，正确的是： 确实，革命者能忍受清贫的生活，能经受锁镣的考验，不正意味着他们精神富有和对未来充满希望吗
When workers are organized in trade unions, employers find it hard to lay them______.
某地通过调查得知，人口数为36800人，其中65岁以上人口数为1840人，全年活产总数368人，死亡总数为184。 该地粗死亡率为
Do animals have fights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. Actually,it isn’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human fights, which is something the world does not have. On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. Some philosophers argue that fights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore animals cannot have fights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd; for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people for instance, to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it: how do you reply to somebody who says I don’t like this contractThe point is this: without agreement on the fights of people, arguing about the fights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans ,or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at allMany deny it. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely logical. In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is fight to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be enco When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
微信支付 
支付宝支付