《职业病防治管理办法》公司和存在职业病危害的子公司应 ___ 对作业场所进行一次职业病危害因素监测。

《职业病防治管理办法》职业病危害情况评价结果为“严重”的单位，应 ___ 进行一次职业病危害现状评审。

《职业病防治管理办法》职业病应急救援原则是 ___ 。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》隐患是指在生产经营活动中，因规章制度、操作规程、标准规范、技术要求的缺失而可能导致人身伤害或者经济损失的情形。其主要特征是 ___ 。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》违章是指在生产经营活动中，违反安全生产法律法规、安全管理规章制度及各项操作规程、标准规范、技术要求的情形。其主要特征是 ___ 。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》隐患排查和违章治理工作遵循“全覆盖、 ___ 、严执法、重实效”和“谁使用、谁主管、谁负责”的总体管理原则。

以下不属于违章分类的是 ___ 。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》公司建立三级安全检查机制，不包括 ___ 。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》综合联合检查每月不少于 ___ 次，每季度覆盖所有生产作业单位。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》专项检查每周不少于 ___ 次，每季度覆盖本专项领域涉及的所有单位。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》未按要求组织安全检查的，按照 ___ 对责任单位和责任人进行处理。

《安全生产事故隐患排查和违章治理管理办法》安全检查中查处的违章未列入违章风险等级清单的，由组织安全检查的部门采用 ___ 进行评价。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》 ___ 负责港区机动车辆安全技术状态及车辆使用维护情况的监督管理。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》倒运车辆第三方外部检验按 ___ 以内每年检验1次，超过 (D) 检验1次的周期委托外部取得国家相关资质的第三方检验机构进行综合性能检测和安全技术检验。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》当倒运车辆发生碰撞事故导致车辆发动机、传动部位、轴承等关键部位受损的，必须经 ___ 检验机构进行技术性能检验合格后方可继续使用。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》倒运车辆所属单位车辆在首次进入港区前，由所属单位和保卫部进行两级内部检验，两级核验均合格的，由保卫部出具内部核验合格证书，有效期 ___ ，并建立档案信息。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》保卫部接到核验申请后，应于 ___ 个工作日内完成核验，申请数量较大的，可以适当延长时限。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》由 ___ 引入的进出港区从事船舶油污水收集业务的车辆，执行以下安全管控要求。

《港区机动车辆安全管理办法》载运油品的车辆，必须配备与载运数量适宜的灭火器，包括数量及灭火型号，一般不少于 ___ 具，不超过 (B) 具。

《外来人员安全管理办法》外部生产经营单位委派的人员需进入公司管辖的有生产作业活动的区域的，由引入单位结合属地单位与其签订 ___ 。

《外来人员安全管理办法》外来施工人员及外来设备设施安装、维修、维保等人员进入公司管辖区域前，由引入单位按照公司《危险作业和外委施工安全管理办法》的要求对其进行安全培训，保留培训记录，发放 ___ 。

《外来人员安全管理办法》外来车辆司机被查处违章无法立即进行处罚的，由 ___ 将其车辆设定为黑名单，并在其缴纳违章违约金后解除黑名单。

《安全环保“三同时”管理办法》项目承办单位将设计文件终稿及主管部门审查意见原件按要求归档，扫描件报 ___ 备案，涉及大型设备维修改造的，同时报技术信息部备案。

《安全环保“三同时”管理办法》公司实行安全环保三同时 ___ 制。

《安全环保“三同时”管理办法》所称的“三同时”，是指项目的安全设施（含职业病防护设施、消防设施）、环境保护设施（以下简称“环保设施”）与项目主体工程同时 ___ 、同时 (D) 、同时 (D) 。

《安全生产值班管理办法》以下哪一项不属于“重点部位” ___

《安全生产值班管理办法》对值班人员所在单位进行考核，考核实行百分加扣分制， ___ 分及以上为合格

《协力单位安全管理办法》公司本部新进入的协力单位，由公司安全生产委员会办公室（以下简称“安委会办公室”）进行安全生产条件核验，核发 ___

《协力单位安全管理办法》协力单位有下列哪一项情形，应及时申请变更《安全生产许可证》？ ___

《协力单位安全管理办法》 ___ 及时将考核合格的人员信息录入安全管理信息系统

《质量信得过班组建设管理办法》集团公司和子公司所属的 ___ 人以上的行政班组均要开展质量信得过班组创建活动。

《质量信得过班组建设管理办法》单位验收评审结果得分为 ___ 分以上的班组可以授予本单位/部门的质量信得过班组。

《质量信得过班组建设管理办法》授予各级别质量信得过称号的班组，出现以下哪种情况时，由授予部门撤销该班组上年度称号。 ___

《危险作业和外委施工安全管理办法》高处作业的四、三、二、一级分别对应 ___

《危险作业和外委施工安全管理办法》红色、橙色管控的危险作业中“断路作业”的专项安全管理部门为 ___

《危险作业和外委施工安全管理办法》外委施工作业超过 ___ 个月的，委托单位应每季度对施工单位进行一次考核，考核机制由委托单位内部建立。

《港区治安管理办法》规定对违反治安管理行为的人员，拒不接受调节、情节严重或 ___ 的，报请公安机关处理。

《港区治安管理办法》规定违反治安管理行为有下列情形的，移交公安机关处理。 ___

《港区治安管理办法》规定值班更勤人员擅离职守或不负责任，造成公司财物被盗或丢失的， ___ 。

《进出港卡口管理办法》规定因港口业务需要临时进出港区的人员（包括货主、船东、船代等），由其业务相关单位的 ___ 确认后登记进出港。

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