“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___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

在制定项目章程过程中，项目经理与业务单位召开焦点小组会议。项目经理尝试确定哪一项？

项目经理负责管理一个新项目。项目章程的高层次风险评估识别到缺乏掌握技能的项目资源，项目章程的哪一项输入已强调此为风险？

一个新项目的项目经理获得四名必要授权发起人中三人的签署同意。第四名项目发起人将在两周内度假回来。项目经理应该怎么做？

新项目经理在项目中途参加团队。项目有五位有影响的相关方和 30 名项目团队成。项目经理希望向团队更新项目状态。项目经理应该通过什么完成？

在项目的第二个阶段，项目经理必须制定一份完成项目活动所需的货币资源估算。由于项目启动延期以及严格的项目时间表，预算计划第一稿必须在未来几天内获得批准。项目经理应使用什么成本估算技术？

启动一个项目升级技术基础设施，并迁移其关键业务流程。哪一份文件中包含项目描述？

若要获得项目发起人对项目章程的批准，项目经理应该怎么做？

招募项目经理时，项目发起人列出面试人选的候选名单。项目发起人应将哪项技能列为最高选择标准？

在为新项目制定项目章程的过程，项目经理审查了以往项目的经验教训。经验教训文件显示经常出现低参与度以及相关方对项目目标存在偏差的问题。为避免新项目中再次出现该问题，项目经理该做什么？

项目发起人通知项目经理新项目将包含来自多个地理区域的项目团队。基于其具有类似项目的成功，项目发起人建议所有团队会议必须通过视频会议召开。确保了解项目的每个阶段。下列哪一项属于包含项目章程中的输入？

项目经理制定了一个相关方权利/利益方格。 相关方 A 应该接受什么级别的参与度？

一名新项目经理被任命管理一个项目，在该项目中，项目发起人同意含糊不清的客户需求。项目经理首先应该做什么？

为提高销量，市场营销团队希望引入一个新的产品功能，一名项目经理负责协助制定一份项目商业论证。哪一种工具或技术将帮助项目经理完成这项工作？

一名新项目经理被任命管理一个处于执行阶段的项目。审查状态报告和可交付成果后，项目经理意识到项目已经成为一种镀金情况，项目经理应该怎么做？

在项目启动期间，项目经理 A 意识到该项目与其他项目相互依存.息息相关。项目经理 A 尝试更改这些相关的其他项目的计划，但其他项目的项目经理认为项目经理 A 超越界限。项目经理 A 需要重新查阅哪一份文件？

项目的高层次范围已经定义，项目发起人现在希望项目经理利用关系，并建立潜在的伙伴关系。必须首先创建哪一份文件？

与项目发起人一起制定并审查项目章程。项目发起人认为由于项目风险不高，没有必要批准项目章程。项目经理应该怎么做？

项目经理被任命管理一个项目，项目发起人已经批准该项目的里程碑进度计划，分析进度计划之后，项目经理得出进度计划不现实的结论。项目经理下一步应该怎么做？

在审查项目商业讨论时，项目经理发现文档制作得很差，且未提供项目论证。项目经理应该怎么做？

一个项目中参与的关键人员的期望.潜在影响和利益记录在哪一份文件中？

项目经理识别了一个新项目的外部相关方。下列哪一项是项目经理识别应包含进相关方登记册中相关内部各方的有效方式？

项目发起人和项目经理正在为新的能源厂制定项目章程，有多个厂址可供考虑，但可能影响项目成本。若要选择最合适的厂址，项目发起人和项目经理必须首先执行下列哪一项工作？

项目发起人希望确定将需要多长时间收回项目组合中每个项目的投资。应使用哪一种财务技术来计算项目回报？

一家公司已经完成两个项目。在为一个类似项目制定项目章程时，项目经理应该怎么做？

项目收尾期间，项目经理必须确认所有可交付成果均已在某个特定日期之前验收。若要核实这一点，项目经理应该怎么做？

项目收尾期间，一名新项目经理接管项目，发现已验收的可交付成果与客户批准的产品技术规范不一致。项目经理应该怎么做？

在项目收尾阶段，可以使用什么工具或者技术来管理合同及采购文档？

项目管理办公室(PMO)要求更新经验教训作为项目或阶段收尾过程的组成部分。什么时候适合更新经验教训？

收到一个为期两年的项目最终可交付成果后，客户发送正式通知称，由于质量太差，他们将不接受该可交付成果，并将停止所有沟通。项目经理应该怎么做？

项目的所有任务均已完成，且客户对产品很满意。项目组成员参加庆祝晚宴。项目经理下一步应该怎么做？

公司收到一家供应商在两年前完成的项目发票。若要避免这个问题，项目经理事先应该做什么？

一个新公司体系在多个部门分不同阶段实施。第一阶段按时按预算实施。团队存档所有相关项目文件，召开经验教训会议，组织团队里程碑转动，然后进入下一个项目阶段。在进入下一个阶段之前，团队还应完成哪一项工作？

项目进入收尾阶段时发现一个技术问题，项目经理应该怎么做？

由于商业需求不断发生变化，一个大型项目在实施中途遭到取消。由于项目满足每个里程碑，项目团队士气低落。项目经理应该怎么做来管理团队士气？

在执行阶段过渡到收尾阶段时，项目经理收集并分发项目相关方的相关信息，以便改进未来绩效。这应记录在哪一份文件中？

一个复杂项目正处于收尾阶段，许多项目团队成员都报告了消极经验。来自组织不同领域的项目相关方可能再也不会一起合作。作为项目需求的组成部分，项目经理必须提供经验教训。项目经理应该如何确保满足这个需求？

一名新项目经理在项目的某个阶段收尾后接管该项目。新项目经理怀疑前一个阶段中存在延期。若要确认这一点，项目经理应审查下列哪一项？

项目经理正在收尾一个已经由相关方验收，团队感觉工作已完成的项目。项目经理下一步应该怎么做？

收到客户对产品的验收后，项目经理应该怎么做来收尾项目？

在项目批准之前， 客户审查了最终项目成果并请求提供类似项目如何能够更有效的相关信息。项目经理应该怎么做？