在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

"137.关于建设工程施工招标中评标的说法，正确的是( )。___

"138.关于单价合同的说法，正确的是( )。___

"139.根据建质[2010]111号，施工质量事故发生后，事故现场有关人员应立即向工程( )报告。___

"140.施工单位在项目开工前编制的测量控制方案，一般应经( )批准后实施。___

"141.下列影响建设工程施工质量的因素中，作为施工质量控制基本出发点的因素是()___

"142.关于有效投标价格的说法，正确的是（）___

"143.关于建设工程依法实行工程监理的说法，正确的是（）。___

"144.关于开标的说法，正确的是()___

"145.关于招标人终止招标要求的说法，正确的是()___

"146.根据《招标投标法》，关于投标人提交投标文件的说法，正确的是()。___

"147.关于履约保证金的说法，正确的是()。___

"148.根据《招标投标法实施条例》，履约保证金的上限是中标合同金额的( )。___

"149.通常沟槽的宽度不大于（）m___

"150.在铁路路基（）m内的挖掘作业，须经铁路管理部门审核同意。___

"151.应用手工工具（例如铲子、锹、尖铲）来确认（）以内的任何地下设施的正确位置和深度___

"152.对于挖掘深度（）m以内的作业，为防止挖掘作业面发生坍塌，应根据土质的类别设置斜坡和台阶、支撑和挡板等保护系统___

"153.在稳固岩层中挖掘或挖掘深度小于（）m，且已经过检查，认定没有坍塌可能性时，不需要设置保护系统。___

"154.保护性支撑系统的安装应（）进行，支撑系统的所有部件应稳固相连___

"155.工程完成后，应（）拆除保护性支撑系统，回填和支撑系统的拆除应同步进行。___

"156.挖出物或其他物料至少应距坑、沟槽边沿（）m，堆积高度不得超过（）m，坡度不大于（），不得堵塞下水道、窖井以及作业现场的逃生通道和消防通道。___

"157.挖掘深度超过（）m时，应在合适的距离内提供梯子、台阶或坡道等，用于安全进出。___

"158.对深度超过（）m，可能存在危险性气体的挖掘现场，应进行气体检测___

"159.采用警示路障时，应将其安置在距开挖边缘至少（）之外。如果采用废石堆作为路障，其高度不得低于（）。在道路附近作业时应穿戴警示背心。___

"160.针对项目时间紧、临时性强等情况，项目负责人未能按照本办法中要求办理前期准备及开工准备相关手续的，由部门管理层明确是否进场作业，并下发开工指令。项目负责人须在( )个日历日内完成相关手续的补办工作。___

"161.项目负责人应于里程碑节点至少（ ）个工作日内部门管理层汇报项目节点情况。___

"162.运维类项目立项程序：各部门每年（）前提交第二年工作需求计划至技术质量部，经技术质量部和安全监察部统筹平衡，报分管领导初步批准后即可在ERP系统立项，第二年年初根据集团下发的预算和公司经营分析会决策再调整，形成公司年度工作计划___

"163.业主委托的技改和大修类项目项目立项过程中，各部门每年（）月提出改造需求，经技术质量部组织讨论并由分管领导组织审查后，通过OA 行文报业主公司审批，项目批准后即立项成立___

"164.运行公司内部技改立,各部门每年( )月提出需求计划，技术质量部统筹平衡，由技术质量部报公司党委会批准后，上报燃气集团公司和浙能集团批准___

"165.对当年因特殊原因需要临时调整（包括总投资变更、项目延期和取消等）的项目，项目管理部门在当年（ ）前经分管领导同意后将调整计划上报业主公司。___

"166.变更工作属于合同范围内，累计联系单的费用低于10 万（含）且低于合同总价的20%（含），由（）签发，累计联系单的费用超过10 万或超过合同总价的20%，由总经理签发。___

"167.变更工作属于合同范围内，累计联系单的费用超过10 万或超过合同总价的20%，由( )签发。___

"168.联系单各审核环节最长不超出（）个工作日，费用审核环节最长不超出3 个工作日。___

"169.收集、审查、更新、发布物资自行采购范围及限额是哪个部门___

"170.收集、审查服务自行采购范围及限额是哪个部门___

"171.对自行采购部门执行财务与廉政制度的情况进行监督是哪个部门___

"172.维抢修自行采购限额中影响管网安全运行或事关 民生抢险抢修急需且单项金额 在 （）元以下的物资。___

"1.下列不属于生产、综合类（施工与服务）及中介机构服务采购招标方式的是（）？___

"2.中介机构服务项目限额（）万元以下，属于公司自采项目？___

"3.检修、维护采购项目估算金额为200万元以上，属于（）管理范围？___

"4.技改、科技研发、委托运营采购项目，估算金额在（）范围内，属于板块公司采购管理范围？___