废旧船舶熏蒸散毒时，夜间应在船舶明显处所垂直悬挂___三盏灯号，表示本船正在散毒。

___不是国境口岸常用的熏蒸消毒药品。

为保证足够的消毒时间，消毒时间应从___开始计算。

___适用于虫患严重的出入境交通工具、集培箱、货物等可密闭的环境。

有机磷类杀虫剂中毒要及时应用___进行解毒。

下列关于不同种类的中毒患者佩戴标志的表述，错的是：___

入境霍乱染疫航空器，卫生处理合格的，签发___。

在入境废纸熏蒸处理过程中投药30分钟后，熏蒸剂浓度应在投药剂量的___以上。

⼀个刚⼊职的新项⽬经理被任命接管⼀个项⽬，但发起⼈不肯在项⽬的章程上签字，问不签章程有什么危害？

地毯供应商未经事先批准，擅⾃为项⽬安装了⼀种与原来设计不同的图案，每平⽅码的成本将近降低了 1 万美元，了解这⼀变更后，项⽬经理的最佳⾏动⽅案是？（）

从部⻔⼈员中被提拔的⼀位项⽬经理，被任命管理⼀个 200 万美元的项⽬。部⻔经理通知项⽬团队⼈员，⼆周以后进⾏项⽬章程评审，项⽬经理⾸先应该怎么做？ （）

政府监管机构要求各公司遵守新的强制性需求，这些要求必须在某个设定⽇期满⾜，否则将遭到罚款。为响应该要求，公司启动⼀个项⽬并任命了项⽬经理。项⽬发起⼈向项⽬经理提供了商业论证和效益管理计划。项⽬经理接下来应处理下列哪⼀个过程？ （）

投资⼈要求项⽬经理终⽌项⽬，因为项⽬预算已耗尽。 项⽬经理接下来要做什么？ （）

项⽬发起⼈启动了⼀个新项⽬，该项⽬涉及他们的客户，多个分包商以及⼀个虚拟项⽬组织。项⽬发起⼈制定项⽬章程，来调整下列哪⼀项两者之间的期？（）

⼀名设计师为⼀座桥梁制作了设计图纸，并将在下⼀次会议上提交给客户。在内部设计评审会议上，该名设计师意识到设计存在⼀个缺陷，需要修改。设计师下⼀步应该怎么做？

在项⽬收尾期间，范围内定义的所有可交付成果都已完成。在客户验收之后，发现了⼀个⾮关键性缺陷。项⽬经理接下来应该怎么做？（）

由于业务需求发⽣变更，项⽬计划获得批准后两周，在设计中增加了新的功能。⼀个相关⽅让项⽬经理在原始设计上实施新功能。项⽬经理⾸先应该怎么做？（）

以下哪项最准确地描述了开展项⽬变更控制的⽬的？

拟派的项⽬经理拿到 2 年前完成的商业论证报告，着⼿项⽬的启动⼯作，他⾸先应该？（）

公司的会计系统项⽬已在执⾏阶段接近尾声，这时财务总监发现⼀个重⼤需求被遗漏，并要求项⽬经理⽴即执⾏变更。如果按照⽬前的技术规范⽣成项⽬可交付成果，该系统将不可使⽤。这项变更⼗分重⼤，但是如果⽴即开始⼯作的话，项⽬经理有可能在项⽬期限内完⼯。项⽬经理⾸先应该做什么？ （）

在⼀个通信项⽬的状态会议上，⼀名团队成员建议采购具有更⼤处理能⼒的⽹络设备。因为对项⽬预算不会产⽣影响， 项⽬经理同意了。对于该变更，项⽬经理⾸先应该怎么做？（）

由于⼯程师不熟悉某些技术，项⽬落后于进度⼀周，项⽬经理任命⼀名⾼级职员来领导⼯程师，并将其记录在项⽬管理计划中。这属于下列哪⼀项范畴？ （）

可交付成果作为独特并可核实的产品、服务能⼒或其他成果，可以在下列哪项完成时被产出？（）

项⽬即将完⼯，发起⼈正要召开产品确认的会议时，客户通知项⽬经理要对范围进⾏⼀项重要变更。此时，项⽬经理应该？（）

在⼀个多阶段项⽬的中途，由于对该项⽬不再有组织上的需求，发起⼈终⽌了项⽬⼯作。下列哪种情况可以避免这个现象？ （）

项⽬经理接管了⼀个项⽬，该项⽬曾在范围管理⽅⾯存在挑战。项⽬变更控制计划要求项⽬发起⼈决定是否将变更纳⼊项⽬。若要减少当前项⽬范围的问题，项⽬经理应该建议下列哪⼀项？ （）

项⽬经理通常在什么时候任命？ （）

项⽬ A 已经交付给客户 A，⽽且开始开展收尾活动，项⽬团队将会转到客户 B 的项⽬ B 上⼯作。销售经理要求项⽬经理提供项⽬ A 的售后⽀持。项⽬经理应执⾏下列哪⼀项？ （）

公司不采⽤ PMBOK 指南知识进⾏项⽬管理，项⽬经理在准备项⽬章程时，以下哪项是必须考虑的？ （）

管理项⽬知识的作⽤，除了（）

项⽬经理发现可交付成果的⼀个关键功能与客户的原始技术规定存在偏差，但是满⾜质量和法律要求。在预算和进度都有制约的情况下，⼀些团队成员建议保留原始设计，⽽另⼀些团队成员坚持改变设计，满⾜客户的需求。协商之后，最终决定还是保留当前设计。项⽬经理下⼀步应该采取下列哪⼀项措施？ （）

以下哪项通常不包括在⼯作绩效数据中？（）

⼀名团队成员通知项⽬经理，⼀个已分配的任务不能通过常规⽅法实施。团队成员建议了⼀个新⽅法，但可能需要额外的时间，并影响项⽬基准。项⽬经理⾸先应该怎么做？ （）

在⼀个为期两年项⽬的最终产品测试期间，⼀项应⽤程序安排在下个⽉实施。项⽬经理发现项⽬管理计划中忽略了⼀个强制性可交付成果；然⽽，开发团队说只需花 15 天就能完成。项⽬经理应该怎么做？ （）

以下各项都是项⽬管理计划的组成部分，除了？ （）

在项⽬完成 75%后，客户要求对项⽬范围进⾏意料之外的变更。项⽬经理接下来应该怎么做？（）

项⽬章程最近已获得批准，然⽽，项⽬经理忽视了可能延迟进度计划的关键监管要求。若要避免这种疏忽，项⽬经理应检查什么？（）

项⽬经理发现对产品进⾏多项细微变更，虽然这些变更很细微，但他们没有在变更控制⽇志中被记录，也未获得客户的批准，如要确保变更在项⽬中能得到正确的管理，项⽬经理应该怎么做？（）

某个施⼯项⽬进⼊第三周，承包商发现⼀段地下⽔管道还没有包含在合同范围内，他们接到客户代表的⼝头指示，将该⽔管改向绕出施⼯⼯地。承包商下⼀步应该怎么做：

⼀位客户致电项⽬经理，要求对项⽬做微⼩变更以激活报告功能。项⽬经理通知开发队实施该报告功能。在测试阶段，发现该报告功能未能满⾜客户期望。项⽬经理本应执⾏下列哪⼀项（）

“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?___

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.