固定式和携带式硫化氢监测仪的第1级预警阀值均应设置在15mg/m3，第2级报警阀值均应设置在___mg/m3。

硫化氢监测仪在使用过程中要定期校验。固定式硫化氢监测仪一年校验一次，携带式硫化氢监测仪___校验一次，在超过满量程浓度的环境使用后应重新校验。

井控防喷器出厂时间总年限达到___的应强制报废：

井控装备达到报废总年限后确需延期使用的，须经第三方检验并合格，延期使用最长___年。

___单位，是指对井控装备进行检修检验、安装和维护技术支持、装备档案和使用信息管理的单位。

井控装备检验人员应取得石油工业井控装置质量监督检验中心颁发的___。

防喷器出厂时间总年限达到___年应报废。

防喷器控制装置出厂时间总年限达到___年应报废。

井控管汇出厂时间总年限达到___年应报废。

___检验，井控装备判废应主要依据关键承压件的内部动态缺陷进行判定。

对关键承压件的判废，应使装备在___下采用动态无损检测方法，评价其内部缺陷的动态性能等级。

中油工程字〔2007〕437号《集团公司井控培训管理办法》中要求：各井控培训机构应当按照___组织培训，严格教学管理，保证教学质量，实现教学目标。

中油工程字〔2007〕437号《集团公司井控培训管理办法》中要求：井控培训教材编写应适应不同专业和岗位人员对___的需要，分为现场操作人员、专业技术人员、生产管理人员、现场服务人员以相关技术服务人员等系列，建立集团公司井控培训教材体系。

中油工程字〔2007〕437号《集团公司井控培训管理办法》中要求：对井控操作持证者，由井控培训中心每___年复培一次，培训考核不合格者，取消（不发放）井控操作证。

所有需持井控证上岗的各岗位人员，必须参加油田组织统一培训，并___后方可上岗。

现场井控知识抽考不合格处罚办法___，补考合格后再上岗。平台经理和工程师同时不及格的队伍停工整改。

井控培训合格证持证者，每___年应参加复培和考核。不合格者应参加下一期的井控学习，考试合格后重新上岗。

防喷器的修理应由___进行。

防喷器法兰厚度最大减薄量超过标准厚度的___%，则应强制报废。

防喷器主通径孔在任一半径方向上磨损量超过___mm，且经过两次补焊修复，则应强制报废。

SY／T6160《防喷器的检查和维修规定》中规定：井控装备第三方检验机构由___选定。

SY／T6160《防喷器的检查和维修规定》中规定：在役的防喷器，除在现场进行日常维护保养外，应定期进行检查，以确立维修项目，检查周期分为___。

SY／T6690《井下作业井控技术规程》中对工程设计的井控要求：工程设计应依据地质设计提供的井场周围一定范围内的情况，制定___措施。

SY／T6690《井下作业井控技术规程》中对工程设计的井控要求：应提出采油（气）井口装置以及地面流程的配置及___要求等。

施工设计的井控要求：防喷器的规格、___及示意图，节流、压井管汇规格及示意图。

施工设计的井控要求：井控装置的现场___、调试与试压要求等。

起下大直径工具时，距射孔井段___m以内，起下管柱速度不得超过5m/min，以减小压力波动。

SY/T6690标准规定___应依据地质设计与作业层位的最高地层压力当量密度值为基准，另加一个安全附加值确定。

SY/T6690标准规定防喷器安装后，应保证防喷器的通径中心与天车、游动滑车在同一垂线上，垂直偏差不得超过___mm。

SY/T6690标准规定远程控制台。安装在距井口不少于25m，便于司钻（操作手）观察的位置，并保持不少于2m宽的人行通道；周围___m内不允许堆放易燃、易爆、易腐蚀物品。

SY/T6690标准规定压裂酸化的井口装置，应按其___中的要求进行试压。

油气井发生井喷后，要对井口周围___进行处置，消除危险源。

《井下作业井控规定》中规定：各管理（勘探）局和油（气）田公司，在每月___日前以书面形式向集团公司工程技术与市场部汇报上一月度井喷事故（包括Ⅳ级井喷事故）处理情况及事故报告。汇报实行零报告制度，对汇报不及时或隐瞒井喷事故的，将追究责任。

《井下作业井控规定》中规定：油（气）井发生井喷失控，造成超标有毒有害气体逸散，或窜入地下矿产采掘坑道；发生井喷并伴有油气爆炸、着火，严重危及现场作业人员和作业现场周边居民的生命财产安全的井喷事故是___。

《井下作业井控规定》中规定：作业队___召开一次由队长主持的以井控为主的安全会议。

SY/T6610《含硫化氢油气井井下作业推荐作法》中规定：含硫化氢的井，作业队宜至少___进行一次预防井喷演习。

中油工程字（2006）274号《中国石油天然气集团公司关于进一步加强井控工作的实施意见》中规定：用于“三高”油气井的防喷器累计上井使用时间应不超过___年，且使用前应经过严格的试压检验，各项指标必须合格。

中油工程字（2006）274号《中国石油天然气集团公司关于进一步加强井控工作的实施意见》中规定：“三高”油气井的施工过程中，每班每月防喷演习不少于___次。

中油工程字（2006）274号《中国石油天然气集团公司关于进一步加强井控工作的实施意见》中规定：从事钻井和井下作业设计、指挥、管理（监督）和操作的各层次、各岗位人员应参加___，包括在现场从事录井、测井、固井、定向井等服务的人员也应参加相应的井控知识和技能培训，做到持证上岗。

中油工程字（2006）274号《中国石油天然气集团公司关于进一步加强井控工作的实施意见》中规定：对即将作业井的目的层流体性质不清或有疑问时，射孔作业应采用___方式，除应安装井控装备外，还应安装防止油管上顶装置。

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。

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