“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___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

车站值班站长决策一、二级客流控制启用，车站站长决策三级客流控制启用。（ ）

车站采用任意一级客流控制时都必须向行车调度员及时报告。（ ）

"车站及时将客流情况向控制中心报告，报告内容包括：车站客流预测数量、预测持续时间、设备运行状态、已采取

车站负责现场客流监控，做好大客流发展趋势的预测，采取有效的控制措施，进行先期客流控制。（ ）

对于可预见的大客流（如节假日、大型活动等），客运处站务中心应根据预测情况提前采取措施，做好准备工作。（ ）

对于突发性大客流，车站应立即报告行车调度员，并立即采取相应措施。（ ）

遗失物品应由值班员负责登记，登记后将遗失物品移交专人保管，在相应登记簿上做好记录，并发送至客服热线备案，以备乘客问询。（ ）

现场处理原则：车站现场受理的乘客事务要尽量在现场外处理完毕，确保事务处理的时效性（ ）

综合处工作职责负责转办涉及乘客事务的来函、信访及媒体信息，并拟函回复（ ）

涉及客运营销、客运导向、客运组织、车站卫生、站务、车站保洁由客运综合处调查处理（ ）

有责投诉分为一般有责投诉和严重有责投诉（ ）

在乘客服务过程中，未按要求着装（应急抢险情况除外）引发的投诉为一类有责投诉（ ）

运营服务过程中，员工未按规范操作设备，但未造成乘客受伤引发的投诉为一类有责投诉（ ）

在乘客服务过程中，作弄、欺骗乘客引发的投诉为三类有责投诉（ ）

义务监督员应及时、准确、客观、公正地以书面、邮件或来电形式反馈监督检查情况（ ）

义务监督员每月乘坐合肥轨道交通应不少于 15 次，反馈监督检查记录应不少于 5 条（ ）

员工回答乘客问询时，要耐心有礼，面带微笑。不得不理睬，可以边走边回答，不得边工作边回答，也不得以摇头、点头等方式回答乘客，应站立或停下手中工作认真回答（如工作确实无法停止应请乘客稍等，并在工作后第一时间回答）。（ ）

车站员工在岗时，应站姿挺拔、双手自然下垂或双手握手自然下垂放于身体前方，不得背手、抱拳、玩手指、玩钥匙、手插进口袋或手搭在物品上、倚靠墙柱等；坐着时要正、挺胸，不得斜躺、抖腿、用手托腮及趴在桌面上，做到“站有站相，坐有坐姿”。（ ）

上班时间应按规定整齐统一穿着工作制服，佩戴领带、领结、肩章、工号牌、工帽（在设备区当班员工不配带工帽并置于乘客视线范围外），佩戴工帽时，工帽徽章居中，刘海以及两鬓头发均须放进工帽内，帽沿不能过低或过高，基本与眉持平。在发生故障或其他突发事件时，可以不佩戴工帽。下轨道时不需佩戴工帽。（ ）

佩戴标志要清洁平整。肩章佩戴于肩上；服务品牌的宣传牌等佩戴于工号牌中下方；党徽、团徽佩戴于宣传牌的中上方；绶带佩挂于左肩上。（ ）

厅巡岗人员应以乘客排队人数8人为临界点，及时向值班站长汇报客服中心和TVM前乘客排队的人数，以便值班站长决策。（ ）

客服中心岗出售车票时应严格执行“一收、二唱、三操作、四找零”的标准化作业程序。（ ）

乘客应急信息：由于故障、事件、事故或其它原因影响运营时，车站、列车需要对乘客发布的信息，具体包括车站、列车广播，车站、列车 PIS 信息显示。( )

调度处负责乘客应急信息发布管理相关规章文本的编写及修订。( )

站务中心负责车站区域内临时乘客应急信息的编制。( )

OCC 乘客应急信息发布范围：客服热线、各车站、受影响列车、通号中心。( )

当发生故障、事件、事故或其它情况影响列车运营且预计延误 5-10 分钟时，OCC 须及时向客服热线、受影响的车站和列车发布晚点信息，受影响车站及列车需播放应急广播。( )

当发生故障、事件、事故或其它情况影响列车运营且预计延误 5-15 分钟时，OCC 须及时向客服热线、受影响的车站和列车发布晚点信息，受影响车站及列车需播放应急广播。( )

当启动应急公交接驳时，OCC 应及时通知车站、客服热线，并通过 PIS 进行信息发布。（ ）

广播乘客应急信息发布时机：预计列车延误 10分钟及以上时。（ ）

分公司标准工时工作制的岗位实行平均每日工作时间不超过八小时，平均每周工作时间不超过四十小时工作制度。（ ）

综合计算周期内总实际工作时间超过总法定标准工作时间的，超过部分视为延长工作时间，延长工作时间的小时数每月不得超过24小时（抢险救灾或特殊情况除外）。（ ）

员工每月事假不得超过5天，每年事假总计时间不得超过20天，超过的，予以解除劳动合同。（ ）

新进人员入职报到一周内，按照规定与分公司签订劳动合同，具体按照分公司《劳动合同管理办法》执行。（ ）

因工作需要，在分公司内部借调人员的，调入处室（中心）需提前10日填写《员工借调申请表》，处室（中心）负责人签署意见，分管领导审核，人力资源处签署意见，报总经理审批。（ ）

解除劳动合同包括协商一致解除劳动合同、分公司解除劳动合同、个人申请解除劳动合同。（ ）

B+（优秀）：按计划完成各项工作任务，能力、业务知识表现良好，符合岗位要求。（ ）

经调岗、降级处理后，员工需重新考取上岗证或经公司重新聘任后可恢复原岗位待遇。（ ）

乘客带多名儿童进站乘车（付费区），根据同行人员进出站信息补交相应票价（成人票价）的付费出站票出站。（ ）

BOM多出票时将该票卡加封上交，不计入《客服中心岗结算单》“废票数”、“售出数”栏，并在《客服中心岗结算单》备注；该票卡计入《车站售、存票卡日报》“上交数栏”，并备注。（ ）