在成本管理信息（V5.0）系统中，劳务结算流程设置为：工经部经办人—工经部长—项目经理—（完成合同额85%以上需公司工经部审批）。

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,I 类变更设计的设计深度为施工图设计深度

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,变更设计履行审批程序并经批准的，其费用方可纳入项目概算。

二次经营是指项目从项目中标到竣工结算全过程中，在一次经营的基础上，在依法合规的前提下，结合适当的经营手段，通过变更、索赔等途径，实现项目效益最大化的再经营活动。

根据《中铁四局集团工程项目二次经营管理办法》（中铁四成本〔2018〕717 号文），总工程师和总经济师是第一责任人, 全面负责二次经营工作。

根据《中铁四局集团工程项目二次经营管理办法》（中铁四成本〔2018〕717 号文），局指分配比例原则上不高于奖励总额的45%确定，各参建项目分部合计分配比例原则上不低于奖励总额的55%确定。该奖励总额由项目成本列支。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），价差是指应调材料调整期与编制期的差价，对应的应调材料数量为定额消耗数量。

某铁路项目为总价包干合同，合同执行最终合同总价，过程中可以通过施工优化或减少结构物，增大施工图负量差等节约成本，提高效益

"铁路I类变更程序分六个步骤：提出变更设计建议→初审变更设计文件→编制变更设计文件→会审变

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），初步设计概算不得突破投资估算总额的5%。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），在二次经营工前优化阶段工作重点之一为：根据工程项目实际情况，只要是单价偏低、影响工期、工艺复杂等有“硬伤”的项目一定要进行优化，降低风险。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号）， 二次经营各章节要点提示提出精调调整件费用，调整件可争取纳入甲供料调差；对于精调标准提高造成的非标准件增加费用，原则上鉴定中心不认可，但标准件厂家回收后的材料费可给予补偿。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），自购材料价差=∑季度验工计价数量比例×各调差材料施工图投检概算对应数量×（铁总公布的季度材料信息价±合同单价×(1±5%）)。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），自购材料调差范围为：施工图投检材料用量+Ⅰ类变更项目材料用量+限额以上Ⅱ类变更项目材料用量+合同外新增工程材料用量+风险包干费内处理的限额以下Ⅱ类变更项目材料。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），铁路工程项目 II 类变更工作程序有四个步骤， 即提出变更设计建议、 进行现场核实、 确定变更设计方案、 审核下发变更施工图等。

根据《建设工程工程量清单计规范》（GB50500-2013 ）规定，因工程师指令错误发生的费用和给承包人造成的损失由发包人承担，延误的工期相应顺延。

工程实施过程中不得随意改变设计文件，如需要变更原设计，必须按建设单位的规定履行程序，按批复的变更设计文件组织施工；未经批准的设计变更，但是设计院提供的电子图可以据以施工。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），工期变化引起费用索赔计算框架与方法中，赶工引起的生产房屋、生活房屋、临时电力线、临时支便道、临时占地及场地硬化等项目的增加费用，按照实际发生费用计列。

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，给水站水源类型、污水排放标准发生改变的变更属于II类变更。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号，道碴价格可以调差，一般采购单价需参考股份公司公布的单价。

根据《建设工程工程量清单计规范》（GB50500-2013 ）规定，保险的范围涵盖不可抗力的内容。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），铁路工程项目,低碱水泥调差，信息价没有相应单价，可比照普通水泥增减幅度调整。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），铁路工程项目火车运价差不作为价差调整列入概算清理。

根据中国中铁关于印发《工程项目二次经营工作指引》的通知（中铁股份成本﹝2018﹞61号），铁路工程项目建筑垃圾清理费用一般纳入到一章费用中或者在清概时解决。

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，车站规模发生变化属 I 类变更。

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类变更设计以工地划分，工程中同一病害类型的变更内容为一个变更设计。

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，铁路项目非责任原因引起的变更设计，不另计取勘察设计费。

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，铁路项目跨度50米及以上桥梁跨度或桥位变化，特殊桥梁结构类型变化的，属于重大方案及重大工程措施标准的变更设计。

《中国中铁股份有限公司投资管理办法》（中铁股份财务﹝2017﹞82号）中所称股权投资主要内容包括哪些？

《中铁四局集团有限公司投资项目审计办法》（中铁四审〔2017〕774号）中的投资项目风险管理情况审计，其主要内容包括哪些？

"依据《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），请简述什么是责任成本计价？

"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）中所描述的内部验工计价是局指对参建单位办理的验工计价，包括季（月）度验工计价和末次验工计价，由各分部编制后报局指初审，再报局成本部审批。其主要计量依据主要有哪些？

"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）中所描述的外部验工计价为局指、经理部依据合同对业主办理的验工计价，其主要计量依据主要有哪些？（答对4条即可）

"《中铁四局作业层队伍管理办法》（中铁四程〔2016〕877号）中规定，子分公司应设立作业层队伍管理部门，实施归口管理。作业层队伍管理部门职责应包括哪些内容？

"《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）中规定的劳务（专业）分包管理的原则主要有哪些？

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司投资项目审计办法》（中铁四审〔2017〕774号）请简述中铁四局集团有限公司投资项目审计办法中收入及投资回收审计主要内容包括有哪些？

"根据《中国中铁工程项目责任成本预算文件编制质量评比办法》（中铁股份成本[2017]54号）规定，工程项目责任成本预算文件编制质量评比内容是什么?

《关于明确工程项目合同价款分劈有关费用标准的通知》（中铁四成【2015】761号）中规定风险包干费是如何分劈的？

《中铁四局集团亏损项目治理管理办法》（中铁四成本【2018】381号）中子分公司项目部治亏职责是什么？

《中铁四局集团亏损项目治理管理办法》（中铁四成本【2018】381号）中，亏损项目治理要如何建立长效机制，才能杜绝或减少新增亏损项目？

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___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。