根据以下材料，回答36-40题
Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior，evidence either way is weak，relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports. But a new study published in Cognition found that ,in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.
The researchers investigated one class session's impact on eating meat. They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitgebel, a philosopher at the University of Califomnia, Riverside: student's attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering. Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic and joined a 50-minute discussion. The other half focused on charitable giving instead. Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester —nearly 14.000 receipts for almost 500 students.
Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors，including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books. But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent — and this effect held steady for the study's duration of several weeks. Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.
"That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention" Schwizgebel says. Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable. And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: "Easy come, easy go".
Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence —— classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common. Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role. Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants' eating habits and students' video exposure. Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel — who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words.
Eric Schwitzgebel's previous findings suggest that ethics professors
?
Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors，including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books.施维茨格贝尔预测干预不会产生任何效果；他之前曾发现，伦理学教授在一系列行为上与其他教授没有区别，包括投票率、献血和归还图书馆书籍。 也就是说伦理老师不会成为一个干扰因素，因为他们跟其他老师在一系列行为上没什么不同，所以D正确，
解决人生目的和奋斗目标的问题，最根本的是要靠
理想作为对未来的向往和追求，是
理想的追求和实现是一个
爱国主义的基本要求是
强国必须强军。历史有力证明，落后就要挨打。没有国防和军队的现代化，就不会有国家的现代化，就不会有中华民族的伟大复兴。中共十九大对全面推进国防和军队现代化作出新的战略安排，包括
走军民融合式发展路子，是实现富国和强军统一的重要途径。军民融合，源于我们党的“军民结合、寓军于民”的思想，其目的就是在更广范围、更高层次、更深程度上把国防和军队现代化建设有机融入经济社会发展体系之中，做到一笔投资、双重效益。加快形成军民融合深度发展格局，要做到
构建中国特色现代军事力量体系是建设世界一流军队的力量基础。总体来说，就是要加快形成精干、联合、多能、高效的信息化军事力量体系，重点是优化作战力量结构，建设现代化陆军、海军、空军、火箭军、战略支援部队和武警部队，促进各军兵种力量协调发展。其中，我国战略威慑的核心力量是
人民军队必须牢牢坚持党对军队的绝对领导，把这一条当作人民军队永远不能变的军魂、永远不能丢的命根子，任何时候任何情况下都以党的旗帜为旗帜、以党的方向为方向、以党的意志为意志。党对军队的绝对领导，其基本内容是
坚持党对军队的绝对领导不是抽象的原则要求，而是有一整套制度作保证的。党对军队绝对领导的最高实现形式是
党的十九大报告指出，扎实做好各战略方向军事斗争准备，统筹推进传统安全领域和新型安全领域军事斗争准备，发展新型作战力量和保障力量，开展实战化军事训练，加强军事力量运用，加快军事智能化发展，提高基于网络信息体系的联合作战能力、全域作战能力，有效塑造态势、管控危机、遏制战争、打赢战争。军队是要准备打仗的，一切工作都必须
