中级电厂水处理值班员技能要求试卷 二、监视调整能力 2.水泵电动机的电流过大有哪些原因？应如何处理？

中级电厂水处理值班员技能要求试卷 三、安全排障能力 试分析真空泵抽不上真空的原因，并应如何处理？

中级电厂水处理值班员技能要求试卷 四、计算表达能力 一台阴离子交换器，内装树脂V=17.5m3，树脂的工作交换量EG=250mol/m3，再生一台需含NaOH为30%的工业烧碱m=1000kg，求再生碱耗！

中级电厂水处理值班员技能要求试卷 五、分析判断能力 除盐系统中树脂有机物中毒有哪些典型症状？

意识形态工作本质上做的是___工作。

要重点抓好___创新、（）创新、（）创新，积极探索有利于破解工作难题的新举措新办法。

建设社会主义意识形态，___至关重要。

发展社会主义市场经济有利于增强人们的___意识、竞争意识、（）意识、民主法治意识和开拓创新精神。

经过改革开放40年的发展，我国社会生产力水平总体上显著提高，社会生产能力在很多方面进入世界前列。我国国内生产总值自2010年开始稳居世界第二位，货物进出口和___总额均居世界第二位，对外投资和xxxx分别居世界第二位、第三位，xx部分领域遥遥领先，高铁运营总里程、高速公路总里程和港口吞吐量均居世界第一位。工农业生产能力大幅提高，220多种主要xx生产能力稳居世界第一位，一些产品甚至出现大量过剩。这说明，我国长期所处的短缺经济和供给不足状况已经发生根本性转变，再讲“落后的社会生产”已经不符合实际。

改革开放以来，我国人民生活水平不断迈上新台阶，人均国内生产总值从1978年的385元增长到2017年的59660元，年均增长约___，已经达到中等偏上收入国家水平；城镇居民人均可支配收入和农村居民人均可支配收入分别从1978年的343.4元、133.6元提高到2017年的36396元、13432元；农村贫困发生率从1978年的大幅下降到2017年的3.1%以下，远低于世界平均水平；居民受教育程度不断提高，九年义务教育全面普及，高等教育毛入学率2017年达到xxxx，高出世界平均水平近10个百分点。

随着人民生活水平不断提高，人民群众的需要呈现多样化多层次多方面的特点，期盼有更好的教育、更稳定的工作、更满意的收入、更可靠的社会保障、更高水平的医疗卫生服务、更舒适的居住条件、更优美的环境、更丰富的精神文化生活，人民群众的___、xxxx、xxxx、参与意识、监督意识、维权意识在不断增强。

从社会生产力来看，我国既有世界先进甚至世界领先的生产力，也有___的、xxxx甚至xxxx，而且不同地区、不同领域的生产力水平和布局很不均衡。

从___来看，经济社会发展取得重大成就，但各个领域仍然存在这样那样的短板，有些方面还面临xxxx。从xxxx来看，我国城市和乡村之间，东部地区、中部地区、西部地区之间，发展水平差距仍然较大。

从收入分配来看，虽然我国人均国民收入在世界上处在中等偏上行列，绝大部分人已经解决了温饱问题，但收入分配差距仍然较大，农村有___尚未脱贫，城市还有xxxx。这些发展xxxx相互掣肘，带来很多社会矛盾和问题，是现阶段各种社会矛盾、社会问题交织的主要根源。

我国社会___的变化是关系全局的历史性变化。

要结合当前任务和长远目标，坚持___和xxxx的方法论，在继续推动发展的基础上，着力解决好发展不平衡不充分问题，大力提升发展质量和效益，更好满足人民在经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明等方面日益增长的需要，更好推动人的全面发展、社会全面进步。

社会主义初级阶段是___阶段，当前我国虽然已经取得举世瞩目的发展成就，但仍是世界上最大的xxxx，仍然面对一系列严峻挑战，还有许多需要解决的问题。

我们党对社会主义初级阶段的认识，从来都不是单纯从经济发展水平一个因素来看的，而是从整个社会主义事业发展全局来看的，涉及生产力和___，经济基础和xxxx，涉及物质文明和xxxx建设，涉及经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、生态文明建设和党的建设各个方面。

谋划发展、制定政策，要始终牢牢把握社会主义初级阶段这个基本国情，牢牢立足社会主义初级阶段这个最大实际，牢牢坚持___这个党和国家的生命线、人民的幸福线，既不落后于时代，也不能脱离实际、超越阶段。

（人民当家作主）是社会主义民主政治的本质特征。第1题答案. 2.坚定中国特色社会主义制度自信，首先要坚定对中国特色社会主义___的自信，增强走中国特色社会主义政治发展道路的信心和决心。

统一战线是一致性和___的统一体。

肩负历史使命、实现新的目标，需要我们最大限度把各阶层各方面的智慧和力量凝聚起来，最大限度把全社会全民族的___发挥出来，现固和发展最广泛的爱国统一战线。

___，中国人民政治协商会议第一届全体会议召开，标志着中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度正式确立。

社会主义协商民主有利于保持党同人民群众的血肉联系，___。

增强协商的广泛性针对性，涉及___的，重视听取社会各方面的意见和建议，吸纳社会公众特别是利益相关方参与协商。

坚持党对一切工作的领导，既要___，也要。

方向___。党的领导第一位的就是举旗定向。

在推进经济社会发展中，要坚持以___，着眼解决人民日益增长的美好生活需要和不平衡不充分的发展之间的矛盾，抓住群众最关心最直接最现实的利益问题，制定切实管用的政策措施。

___是决定当代中国命运的关键一招，也是实现“两个一百年”奋斗目标、实现中华民族伟大复兴的关键一招。

广大党员干部工作在第一线，是推进党的___贯彻落实的重要力量，是党的事业的骨干。

把人民对美好生活的向往作为奋斗目标，关键是___人民立场。

共同富裕，是中国共产党带领人民追求的一个 ___，也是自古以来我国人民的一个 。

必须坚持以人民为中心，在___ 共享、 共享、 共享、 共享中，不断实现好、维护好、发展好最广大人民的根本利益。

紧紧抓住人民最关心最直接最现实的利益问题，从人民群众关心的事情做起，从让人民群众满意的事情做起，使人民 ___、 、 更加充实、更有保障、更可持续。

13多亿中国人民的共同期盼是___

首先用“小康”来诠释中国式现代化的是___

党的___以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央提出了全面建成小康社会的新的目标要求。

全面建成小康社会是实现中华民族伟大复兴的___、（）

“全面”指的是发展的平衡性、协调性、___

要坚持___为中心，全面推进经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、生态文明建设，促进社会主义现代化建设各个环节、各个方面协调发展。

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

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___。