取得造价工程师注册证书的人员，应当按照国家专业技术人员继续教育的有关规定接受___，更新专业知识，提高业务水平。

一级造价工程师职业资格考试设《建设工程造价管理》《建设工程计价》___《建设工程造价案例分析》4个科目。

建筑安装工程费按照工程造价形成由分部分项工程费、___、___、规费、税金组成。

建筑安装工程费按照费用构成要素划分：由人工费、材料<包含工程设备>费、___、企业管理费、利润、___和税金组成。

建筑工程施工发包与承包价在政府宏观调控下，由___形成。

政府性融资担保机构应按照市场化方式运作，依法依规开展___，自主经营、自负盈亏，不得要求或接受地方政府以任何形式在出资范围之外承担责任。

对于中央预算内直接投资项目，因项目建设期价格大幅上涨、政策调整、地质条件发生重大变化和自然灾害等不可抗力因素等原因导致原核定概算不能满足工程实际需要的，可以向___申请调整概算。

公路工程缺陷责任期的“缺陷”是指建设工程质量不符合工程建设强制性标准、___，以及承包合同的约定。

根据《房屋建筑和市政基础设施工程施工招标投标管理办法》<建设部令第89号>，工程施工招标分为公开招标和___。

根据《房屋建筑和市政基础设施工程施工招标投标管理办法》<建设部令第89号>，招标人采用邀请招标方式的，应当向___个以上符合资质条件的施工企业发出投标邀请书。

增值税一般纳税人<以下称“纳税人”>提供建筑服务，按规定适用或选择适用简易计税方法计税的，实行___制。

国务院___部门指导和协调全国招标投标工作，对国家重大建设项目的工程招标投标活动实施监督检查。

依法必须进行招标的项目的境内投标单位，以现金或者支票形式提交的投标保证金应当从其___转出。

___级交通运输主管部门对公路工程定额中缺项的，或者地域性强且技术成熟的建设工艺，可以编制补充性定额规定。

《公路工程标准施工招标文件》2018版与2009版相比，增加了___章节。

《公路工程标准施工招标文件》<2018版>中投标偏差分为___和细微偏差。

合同签订之后28天内，承包人向监理人报送施工进度计划，进度计划应按照关键线路网络图和___两种形式分别编绘，并应包括每月预计完成的工作量和形象进度。

根据《企业安全生产费用提取和使用管理办法》<财企〔2012〕16号>，施工企业以建筑安装工程造价为计提依据，其中铁路工程提取标准为___%。

根据《企业安全生产费用提取和使用管理办法》<财企〔2012〕16号>，施工企业以建筑安装工程造价为计提依据，其中公路工程工程提取标准为___%。

《公路工程标准施工招标文件》<2018版>明确了投标保证金___计算利息。

根据《公路工程标准施工招标文件》<2018版>，当图纸与工程量清单所列数量不一致时，以___作为报价的依据。

《公路工程标准施工招标文件》<2018版>中对于信用查询，新增投标人在___网站查询的要求。

国务院___主管部门负责全国建筑业企业资质的统一监督管理。

施工劳务资质___类别与等级。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号路基工程规定：___是指临时场站至工点间的运输。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号路基工程规定： 路基土石方工程中汽车运输定额仅适用于10km 及以内运输，超过10km部分应乘以___的系数。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号路基工程规定：岩土天然密实方与压实方换算系数表中已考虑了___。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号路基工程规定：支挡结构锚杆计算长度是指___，按规定应留的外露部分及加工过程中的损耗，均已计入定额。

"铁路预算定额[2017]30号基本定额规定：就地整体浇筑小型木模板周转次数___次，墩身组合钢模板摊销次数 50次，梁定型钢模板摊销次数30次。

规定：就地整体浇筑小型木模板周转次数___次，墩身组合钢模板摊销次数 50次，梁定型钢模板摊销次数30次。"

铁路预算定额[2017]33号桥梁工程规定：土坝、塑料编织袋围堰的工程量，长度按围堰中心长度，高度按设计的施工水位加 ___计算

铁路预算定额[2017]33号隧道工程规定：___系指隧道洞身衬砌后的内轨顶面以上净空横断面面积。当此面积＞85m2开挖定额仅适用正线铁路单洞双线隧道工程，不适用于特殊断面及有局部渐变截面隧道工程。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号隧道工程规定：临时支护中的钢结构当与喷射混凝土组合使用时，按___次摊销，扣除20%残值计算；独立使用时按___次摊销，扣除20%残值计算。

铁路施工机具台班费用定额[2017]32号规定：施工机械台班费用的组成___、大修理费、经常修理费、安装拆卸费、人工费、燃料动力费、其他费用。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号通信工程规定：敷设光<电>缆根据设计单条电缆或光缆的长度，以___计算。

铁路预算定额[2017]33号路基工程规定：挖除桩间土工程量按___体积计算。

铁路工程[2017]30号基本定额规定：组合钢模板每次摊销量=一次性使用量+<1+___>/摊销次数。

2007铁路工程工程量清单计价指南<土建部分>:___是指对清单子目的不同类型、结构、材质、规格等影响综合单价的特征的描述，是设置最底一级清单子目的依据，与其相关的工程内容属子细目，不单独计量，费用计入该清单子目。

2007铁路工程工程量清单计价指南<土建部分>:刚构连续梁与桥墩的分界：桥墩顶部___以上属梁部，以下属桥墩。

2007铁路工程工程量清单计价指南<土建部分>:梁的运输费用计入___清单子目中。

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___