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___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

限额以上的社会通用性项目施工与服务及中介机构服务采购，原则上均应采用招标方式

检修、维护等采购项目，估算金额在200万元以上，属于集团采购管理范围。

合同承办部门负责审查合同项下支付条件是否成熟。支付条件成熟时，及时按照本标准5.8 条及Q/TY 206001、Q/TY 207002规定提出支付申请，若走线下流程签订费用支付申请表。

合同应采用书面形式，公司有合同范本的，应优先选用公司范本。

合同用语应严谨、简练、准确、正式，合同中的术语、专用词汇、重要概念原则上应设专款解释，合同价款必须同时采用中文大写标明，并注明货币种类。除特殊情况外，合同文本应当正式打印或印刷制成。

质量标准，质量标准按国家有关标准或部颁标准和行业标准执行。合同中必须写明标准的代号、编号和名称。虽有上述标准但如公司有特殊要求的，则应与对方按商定的技术条件、样品或补充的技术要求签订技术协议，作为合同的附件；

对于生产施工类合同，还应附安全协议。安全协议或/和廉政协议未签署的，不得签署主合同。安全协议由安全监察部提供模版或指导完成，廉政协议由纪检审计室配合完成。

合同谈判必须有纪检审计室、计划发展部、合同承办部门等相关部门人员参加。

若为采购分管领导口头授权计划发展部组织的，需在合同谈判记录中签署意见。

谈判过程以及最终的谈判结果需向合同签署人汇报。

合同审核时，审核意见应明确、具体，不得使用“原则同意”、“基本可行”等模糊性语言，一旦使用，视为对合同草案的否定。

公司各部门均不得以部门名义对外签订合同。公司各部门人员非经授权不得以公司名义对外签订合同或其他对本公司具有约束力的法律文件。

合同订立阶段，所有经招标的项目，合同的起草及合同谈判必须以招标文件中的合同文本为基础，结合投标文件及有效的补充文件（信函和澄清等）与中标人进行谈判和澄清，不得违反原则性条款，重大变更需由采购委员会同意后方可调整。

所有合同范围内变更，变更申请同意后，合同承办部门需在ERP合同管理系统上在合同关闭前发起合同变更流程。

所有联系单都必须明确是否涉及费用、预计涉及费用的额度，对于涉及费用的联系单，必须随附费用预算单。

联系单原则上一事一单，以便于保管和发送，对工作的原因、内容、应达的标准、完成时间、涉及费用等应明确、清晰。对承包方的工作联系单必须由合同承办部门发出，没有联系单的不得结算

1.工作票管理办法适用于公司___、___工作、光缆维护检修工作及其它各项维护检修工作。

2.工作监护人：指工作作业时，负有监护职责的___、___人员、___人员和线路管理人员。

3.设备停运或退出运行：在___中的设备经调度许可由运行值班人员操作，停止运行或停止备用，以进行检修、试验或其它工作。

4.生产区域：指站场工艺区、___工艺区、输气管道、___、站控室。

5.涉及如动火、___、___、管线打开、___、脚手架等特种，需按照公司《动火工作票管理办法》和特种作业管理相关规定开具特种作业票。

6.各级审批人及工作票签发人负责审查工作的作业方案、___、___是否符合作业安全要求，对不完善部分，提出整改意见。

7.工作负责人负责检查工作票所列的安全措施是否正确完善，根据本工作票实际工作内容采取必须的___，并做好___。

8.工作许可人负责向工作负责人正确说明哪些设备___或具有的危险性性等，交待清楚___和注意事项。

9.___负责做好相关的操作工作，重点全面监护___的现场作业。

10.在落实安全措施后,工作内容仍可能造成管线停输、气源中断、___、其他用户非计划停输，中控、站控___影响生产运行监控的作业，以及对人身安全、设备安全、生产安全或用户造成严重危害或影响的作业，必须开具___级工作票。

11.一级工作票由工作负责人申请、___签发，技术质量部、安全监察部、调度运行中心负责人会审，___批准，经___审批许可后，由输气站现场许可。

12.一级工作票有效期一般为___个小时；特殊情况可申请延期，延期最多不得超过___小时。

13.二级工作票由工作负责人申请、作业部门___、主任工程师及以上负责人签发，经___审批许可后，由输气站现场许可。

14.二级工作票有效期一般为___个小时；特殊情况可申请延期，延期最多不得超过___小时。

15.涉及技改、大修等时间跨度较长的施工作业，工作票的有效期可开具___。

16.对非生产区域和生产区域部分辅助设备检维修，对生产运行无影响的作业，不涉及特种作业许可的，由作业部门填写___，填写清楚作业内容，做好风险分析，落实安全措施，经___或___安全检查，签字确认后方可作业。

17.当生产设备发生故障被迫紧急停止运行，需立即恢复、抢修、排除故障的工作，且___不在现场时，可以使用___。

18.《临时/应急作业单》可用于___、双休日、___期间需对生产设备进行应急抢修时使用。

19.一张工作票中，___、___和___三者不得相互兼任。一个工作负责人不得在同一现场作业期间内，担任两个及以上工作任务的负责人或工作组成员。

20.一、二级工作票签发后，由___通知调度中心，经值班调度签署意见后，打印纸质工作票递交___办理许可手续。

21.___及___人员，在公司所辖生产范围内进行安装、检修、试验等工作，工作票签发人仍由本公司具备相应资格的人员签发、审批。

22.工作负责人对照工作票检查安全措施已正确执行后，工作许可人填写___并签名，工作负责人签字确认。

23.工作负责人或工作许可人不允许在开工以后单方面变更___，如需变更，应先停止工作，双方重新进行安全检查确认后，方可实施作业。

24.一张工作票工作负责人只允许变更___次