10《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.4.3.2 条规定：应在工作前一日送达许可部门的工作票包括（ ）。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第3.7条规定：（ ）的电气设备称为运用中的电气设备。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第26.3.2条规定：以下安全工器具应进行试验的有（ ）。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第5.2.2.5条规定：作业人员在作业前应被告知作业现场和工作岗位存在的（ ）。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6. 5. 1. 2条规定：工作许可可采用以下命令方式：___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第25. 1. 3条规定：在厂站带电区域或临近带电体的起重作业，应遵循以下规定： ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.9.3 条规定：工作许可后，（ ）任何一方不应擅自变更安全措施和运行方式。工作中如有试验等特殊情况需变更时，应事先取得工作许可人的同意并履行变更手续。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.4.3.3条规定：可在工作开始前送达许可部门值班负责人的工作票包括（ ）。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第9.4.3.3条规定：操作票填写应实行“三对照”，“三对照”包括（ ）。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.3.3.9条规定：需选用紧急抢修工作票的工作包括（ ）。 ___

《中华人民共和国安全生产法》第五十条规定：生产经营单位的从业人员有权了解其作业场所和工作岗位存在的（ ），有权对本单位的安全生产工作提出建议。___

依据《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力事故事件调查规程》第3.4.3.2条规定：Ⅱ类电气误操作包括（ ）：___

《电气操作导则》(Q/CSG 125008—2016) 第3.1.4条规定：安全自动装置的状态分为（ ）三种，具体参见《中国南方电网调度运行操作管理规定》。 ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第7. 2. 1. 2条规定： 对停电设备的操动机构或部件，应采取以下措施（ ）： ___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第7. 3. 8条规定：间接验电时，应有两个及以上非同样原理或非同源的指示且均已同时发生对应变化，才能确认该设备已无电；但如果任一指示有电，则禁止在该设备上工作。间接验电即通过设备的机械指示位置、（ ）等指示的变化来判断。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.10.1.1 2）条规定：工作许可人持有工作票的终结，包括对（ ）等安全措施状况。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第7.2.1.1条规定：检修设备停电，包括以下措施（ ）。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第3.28条规定：紧急抢修工作是设备设施在日常运行或自然灾害情况下，发生（ ）后，立即进行的紧急修理等处置工作。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第9. 3. 4条规定：操作设备应具有明显的标志，包括（ ）、切换位置的指示及设备相色等。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第9. 4.5.3条规定：执行操作票操作中应做到“三禁止”包括( )。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司安全生产禁令》第四条规定：严禁设备（ ）运行。___

《中华人民共和国安全生产法》第二十五条规定：生产经营单位应当对从业人员进行安全生产教育和培训，保证从业人员具备必要的安全生产知识( )。未经安全生产教育和培训合格的从业人员，不得上岗作业。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第9.4.2.1条规定：设备操作，应根据操作要求选用相应的操作票包括( )。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第 9.4.5.3 条规定：操作后应“三检查”，即( )。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司安全生产禁令》第一条规定：其中严禁两个违反是指：（）、（）。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.6.1条规定：（ ）应根据现场安全条件、施工范围、工作需要等具体情况设置专责监护人，并确定监护内容和被监护人员。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.9.5条规定：工作期间，工作负责人因故暂时离开工作现场时，应暂停工作或指定有资质的人员临时代替，并交代清楚（ ），并告知工作许可人和工作班人员。___

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第7.5.2条规定： 部分停电的工作，临时遮栏与带电部分的距离，不应小于以下作业安全距离( ) 。___

《工作票实施规范（发电、变电部分）》第5.3.6规定 计划工作时间应在调度批准的停电检修时间范围内， 设备停送电操作所需的时间。

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第3. 19规定：开关是指能关合、承载、开断运行回路正常电流，也能在规定时间内关合、承载及开断规定的 （包括短路电流）的开关设备。

《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》（Q/CSG510001-2015）第6.5.3.5条规定：“以手触试”的方法，即用裸手的 逐渐靠近所试设备，直至触摸到检修设备。

1.《工作票实施规范___》第5.3.6规定 计划工作时间应在调度批准的停电检修时间范围内， 设备停送电操作所需的时间。

2.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》___第3. 19规定：开关是指能关合、承载、开断运行回路正常电流，也能在规定时间内关合、承载及开断规定的 ___的开关设备。

3.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》___第6.5.3.5条规定：“以手触试”的方法，即用裸手的 逐渐靠近所试设备，直至触摸到检修设备。

4.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》___第5. 4. 2条规定：临时用电检修电源箱应装 、剩余电流动作保护器、接线柱或插座；专用接地铜排和端子、箱体必须可靠接地，接地、接零标识应清晰。

5.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》___第20. 2. 2 规定：安全带应采用 的方式，不应系挂在移动、锋利或不牢固的物件上。攀登杆塔和转移位置时不应失去安全带的保护。作业过程中，应随时检查安全带是否拴牢。

6. 《电气操作导则》___第4.9.3 条规定：正常情况下，禁止将消弧线圈同时接在两台运行的变压器的中性点上。如需将消弧线圈由一台变压器切换至另一台变压器的中性点上时，应按照“ ”的顺序进行操作。

7.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》___第7.2.2.2条规定： 厂站设备停电时应断开 各侧断路器、隔离开关的控制电源和合闸能源，闭锁隔离开关的操动机构。

8.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程》___第8. 3. 7 条规定：巡视人员发现导线断落地面或悬吊空中，应设法防止行人靠近断线地点 以内，并迅速报告上级。

9.《中国南方电网有限责任公司电力安全工作规程）》___第7.2.1.1条规定：任何运行中的星形接线设备的中性点，应视为 设备。不应在只经断路器断开电源或只经换流器闭锁隔离电源的设备上工作。

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

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?___