关于该省高新技术产业各领域增加值情况，下列说法错误的是（ ）
A . 生物医药和医疗器械领域的增加值超过全省高新技术产业增加值的https://assets.asklib.com/psource/1470036930807092834.png
B . 光机电一体化领域与新材料领域增加值之和大约是全省高新技术产业增加值的https://assets.asklib.com/psource/1470036939271022064.png
C . 航空航天领域实现的增加值可能不到全省高新技术产业增加值的https://assets.asklib.com/psource/1470036947562036635.png
D . 生物医药和医疗器械领域与电子信息领域增加值之和不到全省高新技术产业增加值的https://assets.asklib.com/psource/1470036956903002319.png
点击查看答案
Imagine a world where your doctor could help you avoid sickness, using knowledge of your genes as well as how you live your life. Or where he would prescribe drugs he knew would work and not have debilitating side-effects. Such a future is arriving faster than most realise: genetic tests arc already widely used to identify patients who will be helped or harmed by certain drugs. And three years ago, in the face of a torrent of new scientific data, a number of new companies set themselves up to interpret this information for customers. Through shop fronts on the Internet, anyone could order a testing kit, spit into a tube and send off their DNA — with results downloaded privately at home. Already customers can find out their response to many common medications, such as antivirals, contraceptives and blood-thinning agents. They can also explore their genetic likelihood of developing deep-vein thrombosis, skin cancer or glaucoma. Governments hate this sort of anarchy and America’s, in particular, is considering regulation. The industry has been subject to conflicting criticisms. On the one hand it stands accused of offering information too dangerous to trust to consumers; on the other it is charged with peddling irrelevant, misleading nonsense. In fact, there are many kinds of test and some are much more useful than others. For some rare disorders, such as Huntington’s and Tay-Sachs, genetic information is a diagnosis. But this is unusual. Most diseases are more complicated and involve several genes, or an environmental component, or both. Someone’s chance of getting skin cancer, for example, will depend on whether he worships the sun as well as on his genes. America’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) did not grasp that distinction, between prediction and diagnosis, when it lambasted genetics-testing companies recently for offering disease predictions that were at odds with their customers’ actual medical conditions, it was wrong because even someone who has a lower-than-average genetic risk of heart disease can suffer a terminal cardiac arrest. And the GAO report also went to extraordinary lengths to reveal what the industry has openly admitted for years: that results of disease-prediction tests from different companies sometimes conflict with one another, because there is no industry-wide agreement on standard lifetime risks. Regulators ought to assist in drawing up the standards the industry has been asking for. it might also be wise to consider asking for certain proofs to have been established before a firln can claim to be able to make a firm association between a disease and a DNA sequence. For some complex conditions all the genes that contribute to risk have not yet been discovered. But three things argue against wholesale regulation. First.the level of interference needs to bc based on the level of risk a test represents. The government does not need to be involved if someone decides to trace his ancestry or discover what type of earwax hc has. Second, the laws on fraud should bc sufficient to deal with the snake-oil salesmen who promise to predict, say, whether a child might be a sporting champion. And third, science is changing very fast. Fairly soon, a customer’s whole genome will be sequenced, not merely the parts thought to be medically relevant that the testing companies now concentrate on, and he will then be able to crank the results through open-source interpretation software down-loadable from anywhere on the planet. That will create problems, but the only way to stop that happening would be to make it illegal for someone to have his genome sequenced — and nobody is seriously suggesting that illiberal restriction. Instead, then, of reacting in a hostile fashion to the trend for people to take genetic tests, governments should be asking themselves how they can make best use of this new source of information. Restricting access to tests that inform people about bad reactions to drugs could do harm. The real question is not who controls access, but how to minimise the risks and maximise the rewards of a useful revolution.
A. a disease will soon be wiped out forever. B. a DNA test definitely won’t reveal one’s future. C. a crackdown on consumer genetics is unwise. D. a regulation will be issued to minimize genetic risks.
点击查看答案
，贷记“利润分配——未分配利润”科目 B．借记“盈余公积”科目，贷记“利润分配——盈余公积转入”科目 C．借记“利润分配——弥补以前年度亏损”科目，贷记“应弥补亏损”科目 D．不做账务处理
A.借记“利润分配——弥补以前年度亏损”科目，贷记“利润分配——未分配利润”科目
B.借记“盈余公积”科目，贷记“利润分配——盈余公积转入”科目
C.借记“利润分配——弥补以前年度亏损”科目，贷记“应弥补亏损”科目
点击查看答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
参考答案
十点题库官方参考答案
（由十点题库聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
