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?___

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 can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是正确的。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是错误的。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,人民银行、银监会各级派出机构要按照以下“_______”的原则，做好与地方政府的沟通工作，加强对银行业金融机构执行差别化住房信贷政策情况的监督。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是正确的。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是错误的。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是正确的。___

依据《中国人民银行 住房城乡建设部 中国银行业监督管理委员会关于个人住房贷款政策有关问题的通知》规定,以下_______说法是错误的。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，  依据本指引开展与能效信贷有关的活动。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效信贷业务的重点服务领域包括 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效项目是指通过 等方式，以节省一次、二次能源为目的的能源节约项目。___

《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能源节约项目具备以下特征 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效信贷包括 两种方式。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，用能单位是项目的 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，节能服务公司是项目的 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，合同能源管理包括 等类型。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应明确纳入能效信贷的 的准入要求。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效项目所属产能应符合 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效项目应具备 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，经济可行是指在预定期限内可通过节能效益回收投资，项目现金流具有 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，对于合同能源管理贷款要素的确定，还应合理评估合同能源管理项目的节能收益，充分考虑节能效果的 等因素。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷尽职调查，全面了解、审查 等信息及风险点。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，必要时，银行业金融机构可寻求合格、独立的 等第三方机构和相关主管部门在项目技术和节能量评估等方面给予指导和支持。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷授信合同管理，当触发重大违约事件时，可通过约定相应的救济措施，包括 等，落实风险管理措施。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷贷后管理，密切关注 对授信企业和项目产生的实质性影响，定期对信贷风险进行评价。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷贷后管理，建立 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷贷后管理，贷后管理主要包括 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应在做好风险防范的前提下加快能效信贷产品和服务创新，积极提供包括 等多种融资方式。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应积极探索能效信贷担保方式创新，如 等方式。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应积极探索能效信贷担保方式创新，有效缓解节能服务公司面临的 问题。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强能效信贷能力建设，提高能效信贷的风险 能力。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应建立能效信贷推广和创新的激励约束机制，配备相应资源，提供内部激励政策，包括 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应主动向客户提供与改善能效有关的增值服务。对符合信贷条件，达到先进能效标准的 需求优先支持。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，能效项目涉及行业广泛，技术复杂且创新较快，银行业金融机构在办理能效信贷业务时，应对 进行评估，形成评估意见。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，现场核查要求定期赴企业和项目现场，掌握 。___

按照《中国银监会 国家发展和改革委员会关于印发能效信贷指引的通知》规定，非现场管控要求及时掌握 。___

按照《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行对被投资机构未形成控制，但符合下列哪些情形的，应当纳入并表管理范围： ___

按照《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行董事会应当承担银行集团并表管理的最终责任，并履行以下哪些职责： ___

按照《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行监事会是并表管理的内部监督机构，履行的职责不包括以下哪些： ___

按照《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行应当按照相关法规的要求，在银行集团内建立涵盖_______的全面流动性风险管理体系。___

按照《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行应当充分评估自身在_______之间进行流动性转换的能力。___