题目内容
国有独资公司A不设股东会，由董事会行使股东会的全部职权，董事会成员一共有4人，全部是国家投资的机构任命的干部，没有职工代表，董事长刘某同时自行兼任另一有限责任公司的负责人。A有限责任公司于2007年5月在广州设立子公司B。B公司自有资本3000万元，加上母公司投资的5000万元，全部资产为8000万元。A公司和B公司之间财务账目清晰，独立核算。B公司在某一大型的投资项目中决策失误，不能清偿到期债务，B公司向人民法院申请宣告破产。人民法院受理后，立即用各种方式进行了公告。在债权申报期间，共有十家债权人申报债权，总申报额为8500万元，其中包括从银行的贷款5000万元、欠母公司的货款500万元。在人民法院召开的第一次债权人会议上，部分债权人对B有限公司欠其母公司A公司的500万元货款作为破产债权提出异议，认为：母公司作为子公司的股东，具有实际上的控制权，母公司和子公司之间不存在什么债权债务关系。请回答下面问题。 关于A公司的监事会，以下说法正确的是：( )。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
绕线式异步电动机的调速方法______。
There is nothing illogical or synthetic about the humility ( modesty ) of great bookmen in calling attention to the limitations of the book. No book can 1 us to know everything that is to be known, or feel everything that is to be felt. A book is part of life, not a substitute 2 it. It is not a fit 3 for worship or enshrinement. It loses its charm and much of its value when accepted 4 No one would have been more 5 than Aristotle if he could have known of the excessive and 6 veneration that would be given to his ideas in centuries to 7 . When his works became the 8 words of advance knowledge, 9 knowledge became neither advanced nor vital.The particular occasion for these remarks is that there are 10 here and there that some of us in the book world may be 11 ourselves too seriously. In the effort to increase book reading some 12 things are being said about books. It is made to 13 that nothing is happening now that has not happened before, and that the only true approach to understanding is 14 books. We do neither service nor justice to books by 15 upon them such omnipotence and omniscience. Many of the answers we need today are not necessarily to be found between 16 There are elements of newness in the present 17 of man that will not readily be 18 of by required reading or ready reference. Books are not slide rules or blueprints for 19 automatic answers. What is needed is a mighty blend of the wisdom of the ages 20 fresh, razor-edged analytical thought.
Do animals have rights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground- clearing way to start. 71. 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. 72. Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore, animals cannot have rights. 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 contract" The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 73. 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 all Many deny it. 74. 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 at 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 centre is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning―the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl―is to weigh other’’s 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. 75. 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.
One of the questions that is coming into focus as we face growing scarcity of resources of many kinds in the world is how to divide limited resources among countries. In the international development community, the conventional wisdom has been that the 2 billion people living in poor countries could never expect to reach the standard of living that most of us in North America enjoy, simply because the world does not contain enough iron ore, protein, petroleum, and so on. At the same time, we in the United States have continued to pursue superaffluence as though there were no limits on how much we could consume. We make up 6 percent of the world’’s people; yet we consume one-third of the world’’s resources. As long as the resources we consumed each year came primarily from within our own boundaries, this was largely an internal matter. But as our resources come more and more from the outside world, "outsiders’’’ are going to have some say over the rate at which and terms under which we consume. We will no longer be able to think in terms of "our" resources and "their" resources, but only of common resources. As Americans consuming such a disproportionate share of the world’’s resources, we have to question whether or not we can continue our pursuit of superaffluence in a world of scarcity. We are now reaching the point where we must carefully examine the presumed link between our level of well-being and the level of material goods consumed. If you have only one crust of bread and get another crust of bread, your well-being is greatly enhanced. But if you have a loaf of bread, then an additional crust of bread doesn’’t make that much difference. In the eyes of most of the world today, Americans have their loaf of bread and are asking for still more. People elsewhere are beginning to ask why. This is the question we’’re going to have to answer, whether we’’re trying to persuade countries to step up their exports of oil to us or trying to convince them that we ought to be permitted to maintain our share of the world fish catch. The prospect of a scarcity of, and competition for, the world’’s resources requires that we reexamine the way in which we relate to the rest of the world. It means we find ways of cutting back on resource consumption that is dependent on the resources and cooperation of other countries. We cannot expect people in these countries to concern themselves with our worsening energy and food shortages unless we demonstrate some concern for the hunger, illiteracy and disease that are diminishing life for them. The writer gives the example of bread to show that the United States
微信支付 
支付宝支付