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___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

QS16、两位项目经理认识到他们处于弱矩阵组织中，且权力非常有限。其中一位认为自己其实就是一名项目联络员，另一位则是一名项目协调员。项目联络员不同于项目协调员之处在于？___

QS17、项目经理意识到缺乏对项目以及总体期望的了解。在启动和规划阶段，项目经理应该采取什么措施？___

QS18、项目经理安排了五名项目相关方召开的启动大会。每名项目相关方在组织中承担的职责不同。项目相关方在启动大会中的作用是什么? ___

QS19、项目经理开始管理一个新项目，并着手准备项目启动会议上的幻灯片演示文稿。项目经理对演示什么内容甚是忧虑。下列哪一项内容不应包含在项目经理的演示文稿中？___

QS20、下列哪项是正确的？___

QS21、在一个快速变化环境中工作的项目经理，将收集到的需求清单按照优先顺序进行分组排序。让优先级最高的可交付成果在3-4周内完成。项目经理正在使用哪一种项目生命期方法？___

QS22、一家咨询公司获得一个大型信用卡处理系统改进项目。在过去已经有两个大型项目未能按预算交付预期产品的情况，为避免再次发生这种失败，该咨询公司应该在项目初始阶段采取哪种方法？___

QS23、项目团队成员向项目经理汇报工作。项目收尾之后，项目团队解散并被分配到另一个项目中去。这种组织属于下列哪一种组织结构？___

QS24、一家连锁店的项目经理目前正考虑在地点A或地点B开一间新店。项目经理给出以下信息：*项目地点A：投资回报期为18个月，净现值为-250。*项目地点B：投资回报期为24个月，净现值为300。项目经理将会向选择委员会推荐哪个项目？___

QS25、你是一名大型咨询公司的项目经理，你的上司要你提供公司应采纳哪个项目的意见。项目A的内部收益率(IRR)为12%，项目B的预计投资收益率(BCR)为1.3，项目C的机会成本为75,000美元，项目D的投资回收期为6个月。假如你要根据上述信息做出选择，那么你会选择哪个项目？___

QS26、在项目早期阶段，项目经理被要求编制项目发布文件，项目经理应优先处理哪些重点？___

QS27、你已经铺设了一半的网络。在美国有300个地点，另外20个在英国。一软件卖方对一些正在安装的设备刚刚发布了一主要的软件升级，升级可以给客户他们所需的功能，这些功能在项目开始时是不具备的。在这种情况下，采取的最好措施是什么？___

QS28、项目经理目前正在从事一个关键的高收益项目。他们发现客户正在开展一些非法业务，且项目可能会间接受到影响，这些事实已经通知高层管理，但是高层管理坚持继续从事项目，为了公司的利益交付项目。项目经理应该怎么做？___

QS29、项目经理正在为客户开发一个项目，该项目正在履行一份工时工料合同。他们执行了一项挣值分析，确认该项目可以提前完工，并且少于原始的预算。然而，开发团队与项目经理所在公司签属的合同却是固定总价合同。这意味着项目经理所在公司获得的利润将会减少，而且根据项目利润，项目经理所获得的奖金也会比预计的少。项目经理应该怎么办？___

QS30、一位经验不足的项目经理被分配到了一个新项目上做项目经理，因为将来他所从事的项目为矩阵组织。那么他所期望的沟通形式为：___

QS31、纯项目组织结构中项目团队：___

QS32、项目经理在一个弱矩阵式组织中工作。职能经理将项目经理的配偶分配到项目经理所管理的项目中工作。职能经理坚持说项目经理的配偶是唯一可用的资源。在这种情况下，项目经理应该怎么做？___

QS33、下列哪一种组织结构允许项目经理拥有全部职权? ___

QS34、客户向项目经理提供了一份需求清单。看完该清单后，项目经理安排了一次征集意见的会议，向关键项目相关方介绍清单内容，并提供了最近刚收尾的类似项目文件信息。此类会议属于下列哪个过程组的组成部分？___

"老客户专享理财产品的准入客户为前一日持有我行人民币自营理财产品（不含私人银行部发行的理财产品）时点折效余额达到___万元人民币的客户。"___

"老客户专享理财产品关于时点折效余额的计算中，开放式理财产品的余额折效系数为___"___

老客户专享理财产品关于时点折效余额的计算中，非开放式理财产品的余额折效系数为___。___

若3月20日客户A持有安心得利期次产品50万元，则客户的客户折效余额为___，___购买老客户专享理财产品。___

若3月20日客户A持有安心快线天天利滚利产品160万元，则客户的客户折效余额为____购买老客户专享理财产品。___

"只要客户前一日日终产品折效余额达到50万元，当日即可___次购买老客户专享产品"___

个人客户汇总计算名下不同账户产品余额，若满足折效余额要求，名下___账户均可购买老客户专享产品。___

新客专享定向销售具体范围：在我行新开户不满___天，且从未购买过我行理财产品的客户。___

新资金专享定向销售具体范围：购买前连续___天未持有我行理财产品的客户。___

无论是否起息，客户可购买___次新客专享定向销售产品。___

若客户曾购买我行理财产品但未起息，可以购买___笔新资金专享产品。___

下列管理费率最高的理财产品是___。___

现阶段我行本利丰自动到期系列理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行本利丰自动到期系列理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行安心快线天天利滚利理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行安心快线步步高理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行安心快线时时付理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行本利丰天天利理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行惠农理财产品的管理费为___。___

现阶段我行安心灵动系列理财产品的管理费为___。___

惠农理财产品是总行研发推出的向___客户定向发售的特色理财产品。___