按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定， 商业银行从事理财产品销售活动，不得有＿＿＿等行为。 ___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，商业银行应当按照理财产品风险评级、潜在客户群的风险承受能力评级，为理财产品设置适当的单一客户销售起点金额。风险评级为一级和二级的理财产品，单一客户销售起点金额不得低于＿＿＿人民币；风险评级为三级和四级的理财产品，单一客户销售起点金额不得低于＿＿＿人民币；风险评级为五级的理财产品，单一客户销售起点金额不得低于＿＿＿人民币。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，商业银行不得通过电视、电台渠道对具体理财产品进行宣传；通过＿＿＿等方式开展理财产品宣传时，如客户明确表示不同意，商业银行不得再通过此种方式向客户开展理财产品宣传。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，商业银行应当建立异常销售的监控、记录、报告和处理制度，重点关注理财产品销售业务中的不当销售和误导销售行为，至少应当包括以下异常情况＿＿＿。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，销售人员除应当具备理财产品销售资格以及相关法律法规、金融、财务等专业知识和技能外，还应当满足＿＿＿等要求。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定， 销售人员从事理财产品销售活动，应当遵循＿＿＿等原则。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定， 销售人员在为客户办理理财产品认购手续前，应当特别注意的事项有： ＿＿＿。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定， 销售人员从事理财产品销售活动，不得有下列＿＿＿等行为。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，商业银行应当建立健全 ＿＿＿ 等管理制度，不得对销售人员采用以销售业绩作为单一考核和奖励指标的考核方法，并应当将客户投诉情况、误导销售以及其他违规行为纳入考核指标体系。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定，商业银行理财业务有下列＿＿＿等情形之一的，应当及时向中国银监会或其派出机构报告。___

按照《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》的规定商业银行应当按照中国银监会的规定对理财产品销售进行＿＿＿、＿＿＿和＿＿＿ 统计分析，报送中国银监会及其派出机构。商业银行应当在每个会计年度结束时编制本年度理财业务发展报告，应当至少包括销售情况、投资情况、收益分配、客户投诉情况等，于下一年度２月底前报送中国银监会及其派出机构。___

根据《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》规定,下列 做法是错误的。___

根据《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》规定，下列理财销售人员做法错误是 。___

商业银行从事理财产品销售活动，依据《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》规定，下列情形 做法不符合要求：___

商业银行从事理财产品销售活动，依据《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》规定，下列情形，哪些 做法不符合要求：___

按照《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，收单银行不得因与特约商户有其他业务往来而降低资质审核标准和检查要求，对＿＿＿和低扣率商户或可能出现高风险的商户应当从严审核。___

依照《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，信用卡申请人存在以下＿＿＿情形时，应当从严审核，加强风险防控。___

A公司是一家从事钢贸经营的法人，为了节约成本提高财务管理的效力，A公司向某银行申办了一张商务采购卡。依据《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，下列哪些事项A公司可以使用该商务采购卡_________

小张是某银行信用卡部的营销员，为了提升自己的业务量，小张采取了一些营销方法。依据《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，小张下列哪些做法不正确_________

某商业银行信用卡营销人员在向客户营销信用卡，依据《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，下列营销行为哪些是正确的_________

张三持有一张额度为1万元的信用卡，还款日为每月的4日以前。依据《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，下列哪些选项发卡银行不得收取超限费_________

张三向某银行申请办理一张信用卡，由李四提供连带责任担保，现张三拖欠该银行信用卡欠款已达三期，张三因负债过多去向不明。小王是该行风险管理部职员，负责催收信用卡违约欠款。依据《商业银行信用卡业务监督管理办法》规定，小王处理本案时下列哪些行为没有违反相关规定_________

按照《中国银监会关于规范商业银行理财业务投资运作有关问题的通知》规定，非标准化债权资产是指未在银行间市场及证券交易所市场交易的债权性资产，包括但不限于＿＿＿、信托贷款、承兑汇票、信用证、各类受(收)益权、带回购条款的股权性融资等。___

按照《中国银监会关于规范商业银行理财业务投资运作有关问题的通知》规定，商业银行应实现每个理财产品与所投资资产(标的物)的对应，做到每个产品＿＿＿。___

某商业银行发行理财计划募集资金，成立资管计划，通过某金融交易所，进行委托债权投资，依据《中国银监会关于规范商业银行理财业务投资运作有关问题的通知》规定，下 列做法正确的是 。___

按照《中国银监会 中国人民银行 发改委关于银行业金融机构免除部分服务收费的通知》规定，从2011年7月1日起，银行业金融机构免除人民币个人账户的以下服务收费______。___

甲于2012年7月1号去银行办理人民币个人账户业务，根据《中国银监会、中国人民银行、发改委关于银行业金融机构免除部分服务收费的通知》，银行将免除下列哪些费用？___

按照《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》规定，商业银行违反《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》规定经营保理业务的，以下哪些情形______，银监会及其派出机构可采取《中华人民共和国银行业监管管理法》第三十七条规定的监管措施：___

按照《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》（中国银监会令〔2014〕5号）规定，以下______属于权属不清的应收账款。___

按照《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》（中国银监会令〔2014〕5号）规定，商业银行提供保理融资时，以下______说法是正确的。___

按照《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》（中国银监会令〔2014〕5号）规定，债权人将其应收账款转让给商业银行，由商业银行向其提供下列服务中______，即为保理业务。___

按照《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》（中国银监会令〔2014〕5号）规定，商业银行开办保理业务，应当遵循______的原则。___

位于中国的A公司将其持有的对位于上海自贸区的B公司的应收账款，向甲银行进行转让，并叙做了保理业务，根据A公司与甲银行的约定，若B公司无法偿付应收账款，甲银行可以要求A公司回购该应收账款。依据《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》规定，以下表述正确的是 。___

甲银行拟开展保理业务，依据《商业银行保理业务管理暂行办法》规定，甲银行 做法是错误的。___

按照《中国银监会 中国人民银行关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》要求，客户银行账户与第三方支付机构首次建立业务关联时，应经双重认证，分别为____。___

按照《中国银监会 中国人民银行关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》要求，商业银行应就大额支付、可疑支付及时通知客户。通知信息中至少应包含____。___

按照《中国银监会 中国人民银行关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》规定，以下关于商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务说法正确的是______。___

按照《关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》规定，商业银行与第三方支付机构合作开展各项业务，对涉及到的客户金融信息管理，应严格遵照 和 进行支付，不得违法违规泄露。___

按照《关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》规定，商业银行应对客户的技术风险承受能力进行评估，客户与第三方支付机构相关的 、 、 等决策要求应与其技术风险承受能力相匹配。___

按照《关于加强商业银行与第三方支付机构合作业务管理的通知》规定，商业银行通过电子渠道验证和辨别客户身份，应采取 种因素验证方式对客户身份进行鉴别。___

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___。