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___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

"公路工程施工中由于___原因导致工期延误，承包人应该承担违约责任。

"根据标准施工招标文件，下列关于暂列金额、暂估价描述不正确的是___。

"根据标准施工招标文件，下列工程索赔产生的原因中属于业主方违约的是___。

"根据九部委发布的《标准施工招标文件》中的通用合同条款，工程变更不包括___。

"根据 《标准施工招标文件》， 由发包人提供的材料由于发包人原因发生交 货地点变更的， 发包人应承担的责任是 ___。

"《公路工程标准施工招标文件》（2018版）规定：在变更过程中，解释合同文件的优先顺序应为___。①中标通知书；②合同协议书及各种合同附件；③投标函及投标函附录；④项目专用合同条款；⑤通用合同条款；⑥公路工程专用合同条款；⑦技术规范；⑧工程量清单计量规则；⑨图纸；⑩已标价工程量清单；⑪承包人有关人员、设备投入的承诺及投标文件中的施工组织设计；⑫其他合同文件

"《公路工程标准施工招标文件》（2018版），变更过程中合同价款存在争议时，发承包双方在收到总监理工程师或造价工程师的暂定结构通知之后的___天内，未对暂定结果予以确认也为提出不同意意见的，视为发承包双方认可该暂定结果。

"《公路工程标准施工招标文件》(2018版)规定，由于设计变更，造价工程师在审核承包人提出的变更价款是否合理时，___是确定的基础。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，I类变更设计概算由___编制，按规定报铁总批复。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，I类变更设计文件一般在会审纪要下发后___天内完成，特殊情况下I类变更设计完成时间由建设单位和勘察设计单位确定。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，站房除___以外的建筑方案、主体结构变化的，属于重大方案及重大工程措施标准变化。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，在建项目已签合同中非责任事故、问题的II类变更设计，增减工程费用___万元及以上的，由建设单位在基本预备费中列支并相应调整施工合同额。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，铁路项目II类变更设计以工点划分，对于工点的定义目前尚无统一的定义，一般指___

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，___均有权对变更设计违规行为向总公司监察局举报或投诉。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，建设单位组织勘察设计单位按确定的变更设计方案编制施工图；勘察设计单位一般应在《变更设计设计会审纪要》下发后___天内完成施工图。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，铁路项目实施中，建设单位收到___后，应组织现场核实确认，对现场现状进行照相摄影，对照变更设计建议客观提出核实确认意见，确认人在确认意见上签名。签名后的确认意见和影像资料纳入变更设计档案保管。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》(铁建设[2012]253号文)规定)，I类变更设计由___编制，并对工程数量和费用进行增减对照，按规定报送铁总审批。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》（铁建设【2012】253号文）规定，铁路项目施工图阶段需要对初步设计批复的重大内容调整的，包括施工图预算超出初步设计批复总概算的，比照___程序报初步设计审查部门批准。

"根据《铁路建设项目变更设计管理办法》(铁建设[2012]253号文)规定)，在初步设计审查部门收到I类变更设计文件后，应尽快组织现场核实，提出明确要求。对符合审批条件的，一般在___个工作日内完成批复；需要补充资料的部分，应及时提出补充要求，并在资料补充后20个工作日内另行批复。

"根据《中铁四局集团投资类公司、直管项目公司薪酬与绩效考核管理办法》（中铁四人（2017）860号）规定，局直管项目公司建设期年度考核得分低于___分，取消副处职及以上领导人员年度绩效薪酬兑现资格，建设期全周期绩效考核得分低于（ ）分，项目公司副处职及以上领导人员预留的20%绩效年薪全部扣除，不再兑现。

"根据《中铁四局集团投资类公司、直管项目公司薪酬与绩效考核管理办法》（中铁四人（2017）860号）规定，局投资发展部配合拟订投资类公司、局直管项目公司年度绩效考核指标，下达投资类指标目标值并按___进行绩效考核评分。

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司PPP项目税务处理指引》（中铁四财〔2017〕793号）规定，实行简易计税的高速公路项目其有关开工日期说法正确的是___

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司PPP项目投资尽职调查管理办法》（中铁四法（2017）812号）规定，PPP项目投资尽职调查小组成员中法律人员应作为尽职调查工作的牵头人，负责协调尽职调查小组其他成员开展工作。暂未设置法律岗位的单位，在人员到位前由局___指派一人为牵头人。

"根据《中铁四局安全生产费用管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）418号）规定，各分公司、局直管、代管项目经理部，针对房屋建筑工程、水利水电工程、电力工程、铁路工程、城市轨道工程，每季根据项目的季度建安计划，分别按不低于___的标准提取安全费用，并上缴到指定的“安全资金账户”。

"根据《中铁四局安全生产费用管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）418号）规定，各分公司、局直管、代管项目经理部，针对市政公用工程、冶炼工程、机电安装工程、化工石油工程、港口与航道工程、公路工程、通信工程，每季根据项目的季度建安计划，分别按不低于___的标准提取安全费用，并上缴到指定的“安全资金账户”。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，采用简易计税法的项目，安全生产费照合同价款分劈的安全生产费金额的___计列成本。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，采用一般计税法的项目，安全生产费照合同价款分劈的安全生产费金额的___计列成本。

"根据《中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法》（中铁四成本（2016）502号）规定，局直、代管工程项目中参建公司工经部门根据经审批的项目管理策划书，结合工地调查和收集的基础资料，除非特别原因，应在参建分部施工组织设计审批通过且局内部分劈文件下达后___内，利用成本管理信息系统，完成参建分部的责任成本预算的编制工作。

"根据《中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法》（中铁四成本（2016）502号）规定，中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法中目标利润率的计算方法为___

"根据《中国中铁关于加强基础设施投资统筹协调和风险管控的通知》（股份传2017-400）规定，为加强基础设施投资统筹协调，各投资公司在划定的责任区域内，应积极运作实施单项___亿元及以上的大型基础设施投资项目，（ ）亿元以下的单项投资项目应由工程局负责，鼓励有实力的工程局在其优势领域积极运作投资项目。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈原则上应在任务划分后___个月内完成。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目验工计价管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）451号）规定，局成本部按季度和年度，分别下达局指和子分公司验工计价的目标计划。要求各单位将当期验工计价与调度建安产值及建造合同收入的偏差控制在___以内，并在下一期验工计价目标计划中通报上期完成情况.

"根据《中铁四局作业层队伍管理办法》（中铁四程（2016）877号）规定，项目部应配置专职或兼职劳务员。劳务员负责基础台账、报表及资料备案、作业层队伍现场管理、施工能力、履约和诚信情况记录等工作。每名在岗的专职或兼职劳务员，每年度参加子分公司举办的劳务员培训不得少于___次。

"根据《中铁四局作业层队伍管理办法》（中铁四程（2016）877号）规定，局成本管理部在职能部门职责分工中负责的内容为___

"根据《中国中铁股份有限公司工程施工劳务（专业）分包管理指导意见》（中铁股份成本﹝2016﹞162号）规定，分包结算必须坚持量价控制。结算开累数量不得超过该队伍所承担任务的___和开累实际分包进度数量，单价以合同单价为准。

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司境内PPP项目经济利益分配办法》（中铁四财〔2017〕775号）规定，为充分保障履行PPP协议约定的运营义务，局实施的投资项目以PPP项目公司批复局指（代局指）验工计价为基数向参建子分公司收取___的运营准备金，随局享施工收益一并交局。

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司PPP项目投资经营管理办法》（中铁四投（2017）817号）规定，具有明确合法的收费基础，但在合作期内运营收入不足以覆盖项目投资建设成本、运营维养成本、税费及合理收益，按照“使用者付费+可行性缺口补助”的回报机制进行投资建设的项目为___

"根据《关于规范供应链金融业务有关事项的通知》（股份办发财务（2018）12号）规定，股份公司所属各单位牵头做反向保理需要聘请保理、信托等中介机构的，应优先选择___合作。

"《中国中铁股份有限公司金融投资管理办法》（中铁股份金融（2016）226号）中规定，股份公司各二级企业应在每个季度结束后___日内向股份公司金融管理部报送本单位所有金融投资数据和业务开展情况报告。

"《中国中铁股份有限公司PPP项目财务管理暂行办法》（中铁股份财务（2018）131号）中规定，资产负债率高于85%或近___年连续亏损的单位不得单独投资PPP项目。