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.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

按照《中国银监会关于印发商业银行公司治理指引的通知》规定，商业银行_______对银行风险管理承担最终责任。___

甲公司持有大恒银行10％股权，为大恒银行第二大股东，乙公司持有大恒银行7％的股权，为大恒银行第三大股东，甲公司和乙公司均为某国有控股公司全资子公司。大恒银行董事会成员为9人，监事会成员为5人，在大恒银行即将进行的董事会和监事会换届选举的提名过程中，根据《商业银行公司治理指引》的规定，哪种做法是正确的？___

富丽银行董事会制定2014年度的会议计划，根据《商业银行公司治理指引》的规定，以下哪种方案不符合规定________

大恒银行董事会计划以通讯表决的方式审议相关议案，根据《商业银行公司治理指引》的规定，以下哪个议案可以通讯表决的方式进行审议?___

魏某为龙达银行独立董事，同时还担任该行董事会审计委员会主任委员，根据《商业银行公司治理指引》的规定，请问魏某每年在龙达银行工作的时间不得少于 个工作日？___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，商业银行______、内控管理职能部门和业务部门均承担内部控制监督检查的职责。___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，______应当对未执行相关制度流程、未适当履行检查职责、未及时落实整改承担直接责任。___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，内部控制是商业银行_______参与的，通过制定和实施系统化的制度、流程和方法，实现控制目标的动态过程和机制。 ①股东大会 ②董事会 ③监事会 ④高级管理层 ⑤全体员工___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，商业银行应当建立由_______组成的分工合理、职责明确、报告关系清晰的内部控制治理和组织架构。 ①股东大会 ②董事会 ③监事会 ④高级管理层 ⑤内控管理职能部门 ⑥内部审计部门 ⑦业务部门 ⑧全体员工___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，商业银行应当建立健全外包管理制度，明确外包管理组织架构和管理职责，并至少_______开展一次全面的外包业务风险评估。___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，商业银行应当建立科学的_______、合理设定内部控制考评标准，对考评对象在特定期间的内部控制管理活动进行评价，并根据考评结果改进内部控制管理。___

按照《商业银行内部控制指引》规定，商业银行应当根据业务经营情况和风险状况确定内部控制评价的频率，至少_______开展一次。___

某银行在受理业务咨询过程中发现存款单位所持“存款证实书”系伪造，经公安机关初步查明，系该行业务经理与外人勾结开立有瑕疵的存单，再将该存单抵押贷款，贷款所得现金再去贷款，循环往复，以此做大存贷款规模，直到案发时，已给银行造成十几亿的损失。该案例暴露了银行在内控管理上的漏洞，以下哪项措施满足新出台的《商业银行内部控制指引》的要求_________

按照《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，董事会应下设审计委员会。审计委员会成员不少于_______人，多数成员应是非执行董事。___

按照《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，内部审计人员至少应具备_______以上金融从业经验。___

按照《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，审计委员会应按向_______董事会报告审计工作情况，并通报高级管理层和监事会。___

按照《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，首席审计官和内部审计部门应按季向董事会和高级管理层主要负责人报告审计工作情况。每年至少_______向董事会提交包括履职情况、审计发现和建议等内容的审计工作报告。___

某商业银行省分行现有正式员工800人，依据《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，分行审计部门人员应配备的员工数应不少于_______，并建立内部岗位轮换制。___

2014年初某股份制银行总行审计部派南部片区审计中心对某地分行2013年的经营管理及内部控制状况开展了常规审计工作，并出具了《某分行2013年度常规审计报告》，报告对其2013年度的全面工作进行了评价，但该分行对《审计报告》结论提出来了异议，认为审计报告的结论与事实不符，向总行提出了书面复议请求，总行依据《银行业金融机构内部审计指引》规定，派___________进行了复议。___

按照《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，外审机构同一签字注册会计师对同一家银行业金融机构进行外部审计的服务年限不得超过_______；否则，银行业金融机构应当要求外审机构更换签字注册会计师。___

按照《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，对因审计结果严重失实、存在严重舞弊行为、严重违背中国注册会计师审计准则，存在应发现而未发现的重大问题而被终止委托的外审机构，银行业金融机构_______内不得委托其从事审计业务。___

按照《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，_______对外部审计负最终责任。___

按照《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，银行业金融机构应当委托具有_______、专业胜任能力和声誉良好的外审机构从事审计业务。___

北京某著名会计事务所常年从事对北京某股份制银行《年度财务报告》的审计工作，根据《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，因该事务所某签字注册会计师对该银行的服务年限已超过________年，于是更换了另一签字注册会计师参与《年度财务报告》审计工作。___

中兴会计事务所2014年5月经某股份制银行总行委派对福建省分行开展 “对公授信业务专项审计”，2014年6月审计结束，中兴会计事务所出具了《对公授信业务专项审计报告》，根据《银行业金融机构外部审计监管指引》规定，该股份制银行总行要求被检查分行应当重视并积极整改外部审计发现的问题，并将整改结果报送________。___

按照《贷款风险分类指引》规定，逾期（含展期）超过一定期限、其应收利息不再计入当期损益的贷款，至少归为_______。___

按照《贷款风险分类指引》规定，重组贷款的分类档次在至少_______个月的观察期内不得调离，观察期结束后，应严格按照本指引规定进行分类。___

按照《贷款风险分类指引》规定，商业银行内部审计部门应对信贷资产分类政策、程序和执行情况进行检查和评估，将结果向上级行或董事会作出书面汇报，并报送中国银行业监督管理委员会或其派出机构。检查、评估的频率每年不得少于_______次。___

按照《贷款风险分类指引》规定，贷款本金和利息虽尚未逾期，但借款人有利用兼并、重组、分立等形式恶意逃废银行债务的嫌疑，该笔贷款应归入_______。___

按照《贷款风险分类指引》规定，需要重组的贷款应至少归为_______。___

借款人为甲公司，从事3C产品开发销售，由于竞争对手的新产品有了重大突破，并以低成本低价格的优势迅速占领市场，甲公司年初向乙银行借款的3千万依靠其正常营业收入无法足额偿还贷款本息，即使执行担保，也可能会造成一定损失，根据《贷款风险分类指引》，下列选项____ 是正确的？___

甲公司年初向乙银行贷款2千万，由于经营不善甲公司于6月21日申请破产，负债高达20个亿，现经乙银行评估，在采取必要的法律程序后，甲公司所欠乙银行的本息基本无法收回，根据《贷款风险分类指引》要求甲检查、评估的频率每年不得少于下列选项次数？___

按照《小企业贷款风险分类办法（试行）》规定，发生《商业银行小企业授信工作尽职指引（试行）》第十八条所列举的影响小企业履约能力的重大事项以及出现该指引“附录”所列举的预警信号时，小企业贷款的分类应在逾期天数风险分类矩阵的基础上至少_______。___

按照《小企业贷款风险分类办法（试行）》规定，，本办法规定的贷款分类方式是小企业贷款风险分类的_______要求。___

某小企业向银行贷款C万元，提供其持有的某上市公司流通股票质押，同时追加企业实际控制人连带担保责任，贷款到期后90天，企业仍无力偿还，依据《小企业贷款风险分类办法（试行）》的规定，按五级分类，该笔贷款应划入_________

某小企业向银行贷款3000万元，提供其厂房和设备抵押，同时追加关联企业承担连带担保责任，该笔贷款到期一年企业仍未能偿还，依据《小企业贷款风险分类办法（试行）》的规定，按五级分类，该笔贷款应划入_________

按照《不良金融资产处置尽职指引》规定，银行业金融机构和金融资产管理公司应建立对尽职检查监督工作的监督机制，对尽职检查监督人员的尽职情况进行监督。至少_______向银行业监管机构报告尽职检查监督工作情况。___

按照《不良金融资产处置尽职指引》规定，不良债权不包括__________

按照《不良金融资产处置尽职指引》规定，银行业金融机构和金融资产管理公司应按照适用会计准则或审慎会计原则，定期（至少_______）重估不良金融资产的实际价值。___

按照《不良金融资产处置尽职指引》规定，对债权进行重组的，包括以物抵债、修改债务条款、资产置换等方式或其组合。以下不符合规定的有__________