根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，小微企业授信尽职免责工作，是指商业银行在小微企业授信业务出现风险后，经过有关工作流程，有充分证据表明授信部门及工作人员根据有关法律法规、规章和规范性文件以及银行内部管理制度勤勉尽职地履行了职责的，应免除其全部或部分责任。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，商业银行小微企业授信业务风险状况未超过本行所设定不良容忍度目标的，在不违反有关法律法规、规章和规范性文件规定的前提下，原则上只对相关小微企业授信业务管理部门或经办机构负责人追究领导或管理责任。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，小微企业授信业务发生风险后，对相关工作人员的责任处理，必须以尽职评议组织开展尽职免责调查与评议并进行责任认定为前提，开展评议工作有困难的，可以合规检查、信贷检查、专项检查等检查结论替代尽职评议。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，商业银行应对小微企业授信业务及尽职免责工作文档加强管理，客观、全面地记录有关调查、评议、认定过程和结果，并将相关材料存档。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，商业银行负责小微企业授信业务的管理部门和经办机构负责人及管理人员，若未参与具体业务流程的，原则上不承担所在部门或机构小微企业授信业务领导或管理责任。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强商业银行小微企业授信尽职免责工作的通知》的规定，开展尽职评议时，被评议的小微企业授信业务工作人员（含部门负责人、经办人员等，以下简称被评议人）不得参与评议工作。___

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，小企业金融服务专营机构可申请单独颁发金融许可证和营业执照。___

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应建立独立的激励约束机制。对小企业金融服务的业绩考核要独立于其他银行业务，制定专门的业绩考核和奖惩机制，加大资源配置力度，注重经营绩效和风险管理相结合，探索多种激励约束方式。___

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应建立独立有效的风险管理机制。采取与小企业性质、规模相适应的风险管理技术，对授信调查、授信审批、贷款发放、风险分类、风险预警、不良资产处置等各个环节的风险进行管控。___

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应根据小企业的特点和实际业务情况设立合理的风险容忍度。同时，建立授信尽职免责制度，在考核整体质量及综合回报的基础上，根据实际情况和有关规定追究或免除有关当事人的相应责任，做到尽职者免责，失职者问责。___

达信银行将新设立的小企业金融服务专营机构命名为达信快捷贷综合服务中心。根据《中国银监会关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》，该专营机构命名是否正确？___

根据《中国银监会关于完善和创新小微企业贷款服务提高小微企业金融服务水平的通知》的规定，可以办理续贷的小微企业条件之一为，原流动资金周转贷款风险分类为关注以上，且符合新发放流动资金周转贷款条件和标准。___

根据《中国银监会关于完善和创新小微企业贷款服务提高小微企业金融服务水平的通知》的规定，银行业机构同意续贷的，应当在原流动资金周转贷款到期前与小微企业签订新的借款合同，需要担保的签订新的担保合同，落实借款条件，通过新发放贷款结清已有贷款等形式，允许小微企业继续使用贷款资金。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步做好小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》的规定，对流动资金周转贷款到期后仍有融资需求，又临时存在资金困难的小微企业，经其主动申请，银行业金融机构可以提前按新发放贷款的要求开展贷款调查和评审。___

对生产经营正常，但存在贷款欠息的小微企业，大新银行可通过新发放贷款结清已有贷款等形式，允许企业继续使用贷款资金。根据《关于完善和创新小微企业贷款服务提高小微企业金融服务水平的通知》的规定，上述说法是否正确？_________

对在贷后检查中发现改变续贷贷款用途的小微企业，大新银行应及时进行风险评估和风险预警，必要时提前收回贷款资金。根据《关于完善和创新小微企业贷款服务提高小微企业金融服务水平的通知》的规定，上述表述是否正确？_________

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于2019年进一步提升小微企业金融服务质效的通知》的规定，鼓励开发银行及政策性银行结合机构和业务特点，以转贷形式向银行业金融机构批发资金，专门用于投放小微企业贷款。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于2019年进一步提升小微企业金融服务质效的通知》的规定，各银行业金融机构要进一步落实授信尽职免责制度和容错纠错机制，对小微企业不良贷款率未超出容忍度标准的分支机构，在无违反法律法规和监管规则行为的前提下，可对分支机构负责人、小微业务部门和从业人员免予追责。___

根据《中国银行业监督管理委员会关于印发<商业银行小企业授信工作尽职指引(试行)>的通知》的规定，商业银行制定的小企业授信政策应体现小企业经营规律、小企业授信业务风险特点，并实行差别化授信管理。___

根据《中国银行业监督管理委员会关于印发<商业银行小企业授信工作尽职指引(试行)>的通知》的规定，小企业授信工作人员应在授信业务活动中声明是否为授信申请人的关系人。___

根据《中国银监会关于支持商业银行进一步改进小企业金融服务的通知》的规定，鼓励商业银行新设或改造部分分支行为专门从事小企业金融服务的专业分支行或特色分支行。___

根据《中国银监会关于支持商业银行进一步改进小企业金融服务的通知》，鼓励和支持商业银行积极通过制度、产品和服务创新支持科技型小型微型企业成长，探索建设符合我国国情的科技支行。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发提高小微企业信贷服务效率合理压缩获得信贷时间实施方案的通知》，鼓励商业银行对符合相关条件的小微企业客户，探索运用零售业务管理技术，在合理评估风险的前提下，优化小微企业贷款审批政策和流程。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发提高小微企业信贷服务效率合理压缩获得信贷时间实施方案的通知》的规定，鼓励商业银行为小微企业合理设置流动资金贷款期限，研发适合小微企业的中长期固定资产贷款产品。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发提高小微企业信贷服务效率合理压缩获得信贷时间实施方案的通知》的规定，商业银行可在风险可控的前提下自主确定小微企业贷款资金支付方式。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于进一步做好小微企业融资服务有关工作的通知》的规定，鼓励银行业金融机构结合自身情况探索建立贷款全流程限时制度，精简耗时环节，对小微企业贷款办理时限作出明确承诺。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于进一步做好小微企业融资服务有关工作的通知》的规定，进一步深化银行和保险公司合作机制，优化小微企业银保合作业务流程，更好发挥保险的增信分险功能。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于进一步做好小微企业融资服务有关工作的通知》的规定，银行业金融机构要认真贯彻落实有关规范经营和服务收费的监管政策法规，严禁在发放小微企业贷款时附加不合理条件。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于进一步做好小微企业融资服务有关工作的通知》的规定，银行业金融机构要在把控风险的前提下，细化小微企业贷款不良容忍度内部管理办法。可根据自身风险偏好、风险管理水平和当地经济金融环境，对各地分支机构设置差异化的不良容忍度目标。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于进一步做好小微企业融资服务有关工作的通知》，银行业金融机构应对符合条件的小微企业加大贷款自主支付和续贷支持力度___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，改进宏观审慎评估考核，增加小微企业贷款考核权重，引导金融机构加大对小微企业贷款投放，合理确定并有效降低融资成本。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，在强化信息披露、提高透明度的前提下，支持银行业金融机构发行小微企业贷款资产支持证券。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，鼓励银行业金融机构发行小微企业金融债券，放宽发行条件，加强后续督导，确保募集资金用于向小微企业发放贷款。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，银行业金融机构通过发行小微企业贷款资产支持证券盘活的小微企业存量贷款，在考核小微企业贷款投放时可还原计算。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，银行业金融机构要在分支行行长和领导班子考核中，结合实际充分考虑小微企业金融服务情况。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，鼓励银行业金融机构等资金提供方完善应收账款融资产品制度，优化业务流程，帮助更多小微企业获得应收账款融资。___

根据人民银行、银保监会等五部门《关于进一步深化小微企业金融服务的意见》的规定，完善小微企业信用信息共享机制，鼓励银行等金融机构开发适合小微企业的信用融资产品___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于对银行业小微企业贷款利率实施监测的通知》的规定，各大中型商业银行应根据商业可持续、“保本微利”的原则，结合客户实际风险情况，进一步提升差别化利率定价能力。加强对普惠型小微企业贷款利率的实时监测。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于对银行业小微企业贷款利率实施监测的通知》的规定，成立普惠金融事业部的大中型商业银行要进一步完善成本分摊和收益共享机制，在精确核算的基础上动态调整内部资金转移价格，切实降低小微企业贷款的内部筹资成本。其它银行业金融机构要积极推行小微企业贷款内部资金转移价格优惠措施，提升业务条线和分支机构开展小微企业业务的积极性。___

根据《中国银保监会办公厅关于对银行业小微企业贷款利率实施监测的通知》的规定，对使用政策性银行转贷资金、人民银行支小再贷款发放的普惠型小微企业贷款，以及对享受政府性融资担保公司担保服务的普惠型小微企业贷款，合理控制其利率定价。___

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___。

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___。