华南理工大学834技术经济学2018年考研专业课真题试卷

华南理工大学经济学真题及部分答案详解

华南理工大学2012年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（请在答题纸上做答，试卷上做答无效，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：经济学(含宏观、微观)适用专业：国民经济学，区域经济学，金融学，产业经济学，数量经济学共 2 页一、名词解释（每小题6分，共30分）1、替代效应和收入效应2、规模经济与范围经济3、外部影响与科斯定理4、真实利率与费雪效应5、滞胀与菲利普斯曲线二、简答题（每小题10分，共60分）1．“需求的价格弹性等于需求曲线的斜率”这种陈述是否正确，简述理由。

2．完全竞争理论的必要假设有哪些？试解释这些假设的重要性。

3．一个厂商排放污染物破坏了周围环境。

简述激励厂商降低污染物的几种方法。

4．概述经济增长（生产率增长）的源泉及促进经济增长的政策措施。

5．支出法GDP由哪些部分构成？什么是最终消费率？中国最终消费率为什么偏低？6．自动稳定器有哪些？选择其中一个稳定器解释它如何并为什么会影响产出波动。

三、计算题（每小题15分，共30分）1、假设两家电子厂商S和T共同持有一项用于机场雷达系统零件的专利权，此零件的需求函数是P=200-QS-QT, 式中QS和QT是两家厂商的销售量；P是市场销售价格。

两家厂商制造和销售此零件的总成本函数分别是TCS=1500+55QS+QS2和TCT=1200+70QT+QT2。

①假设两家厂商按古诺模型独立行动，求市场价格、每家厂商的最优产量、每家厂商的利润；②如果两家厂商串谋，求市场价格、每家厂商的最优产量、每家厂商的利润；③比较两种情况你可以得出哪些结论？2、若某一宏观经济模型的参数如下：C=100+0.8Y;I=150-5r;L=0.12-2r；M=100(单位：亿元)；试求：①IS-LM均衡条件下的收入及利率水平。

②若充分就业的收入水平为1200亿元，政府为了实现充分就业，单独运用扩张的财政政策，追加的投资应为多少？利率水平为多少？分析该政策的“收入效应”和“挤出效应”。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题838_高分子化学

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题838_高分子化学838华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：高分子化学适用专业：生物医学工程；生物医学工程(专硕)共 4 页一、名词解释（20 分，每题2 分）1. 结构单元2. 平均官能度3. 聚合极限温度4. 乳液聚合5. 缓聚剂6. 链转移常数7. 恒比点8. 遥爪聚合物9. 配位聚合10. 活性聚合物二、选择题（40 分，每题2 分）1．以下属于单分散的物质有A.天然橡胶B.玉米淀粉C.β-球蛋白D.聚乙烯2．单体H2N(CH2)m COOH 缩聚时，当m 值为多少时，存在环化的倾向A.1B.4C.7D.123．涤纶聚合通常采用的聚合方法为A.溶液聚合B.熔融聚合C.乳液聚合D.界面聚合4．主要以阴离子方式进行聚合的单体为A.丙烯B.四氟乙烯C.乙酸乙烯酯D.硝基乙烯5．适于悬浮聚合的引发剂体系是A.A I BNB.K2S2O8C.(NH4)2S2O8D.FeO/H2O26．适用于温度为零下10℃以下的引发剂为A.BPOB.二乙基铅C. K2S2O8D. FeO/H2O27．乳液聚合消耗单体的主要阶段是A.加速期B.恒速期C.减速期D.成核期8．乳液聚合的主要反应场所为A.胶束B.单体液滴C.溶剂D.乳化剂9．自由基聚合反应中，主要消耗单体的基元反应是A.链引发B.链增长C.链终止D.链转移10．缓聚剂对自由基聚合反应聚合度产生的影响主要有A.无影响B.增加C.降低D.终止反应11．容易发生自加速效应的聚合方法为A.乳液聚合B.悬浮聚合C.本体聚合D.界面聚合12．玻璃钢制品加工过程中最主要的反应类型为A.接枝反应B.扩链反应C.交联反应D.缩合反应13．属于连锁降解机理的高分子材料是A.涤纶B.纤维素C.聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯D.聚乳酸14．具有自熄特性的高分子材料有A.聚碳酸酯B.硝基纤维素C.ABS 树脂D.聚氯乙烯15．聚丙烯腈可以采用加工的方法有A.熔融挤出B.注塑成型C.溶液流延D.吹塑成型16．两个单体竞聚率r1=r2=0，共聚产物为：A.嵌段共聚物B.接枝共聚物C.交替共聚物D.无规共聚物17．在自由基共聚中，e 值相差较大的单体容易发生A.交替共聚B.理想共聚C.非理想共聚D.嵌段共聚18．一对单体的竞聚率将随下列条件变化的是A.聚合时间B.单体配比不同C.引发剂浓度D.聚合温度19．制备相对分子量窄的聚苯乙烯，宜采用的聚合方法是A.自由基聚合B.配位聚合C.阴离子聚合D.阳离子聚合20．主要通过温度控制分子量的聚合反应是A.自由基聚合B.配位聚合C.阴离子聚合D.阳离子聚合三、判断题（30 分，每题3 分）1. 离子聚合反应存在自加速效应。

华南理工大学2018年《868经济学(含宏观、微观)》考研专业课真题试卷

四、论述题（每题 20 分，共 40 分） 1.评述经济学中关于经济周期成因的主要观点。 2. 简述供给学派的主要观点及其对中国供给侧结构性改革的借鉴意义。
第
2
页
868
华南理工大学 2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：经济学(含宏观、微观) 适用专业：区域经济学；金融学；产业经济学；国际贸易学；数量经济学共页
一、名词解释（每题 6 分，共 30 分） 1.规模经济与范围经济.名义 GDP 与真实 GDP 5.GDP 紧缩指数与消费者价格指数
第
1 页
三、计算题（第 1 题 12 分，第 2 题 8 分，共 20 分） 1.假设：小麦需求函数为 QD =35.5 2.66P ，供给函数为 QS =18+2.4P ，为了保护农场主利益，政府设定最低价格为 3.7 元，并按此价格收购市场上剩余小麦。（1）求政府收购的小麦数量。（2）求消费者剩余变动量。（3）求生产者剩余变动量。（4）求政府的成本。 2.某商品市场需求曲线为 P 100 2Q ，市场有 2 个厂商，其总成本函数都为 TC (q) 4q ，q 为厂商生产数量。（1）求古诺均衡解。（2）求厂商 1 为领导者，厂商 2 为追随者的斯塔克尔伯格解（产量领导）。
二、分析题（每题 10 分，共 60 分） 1.利用显示偏好理论，作图分析养老金指数化的福利影响。 2.什么是帕累托有效？帕累托效率的三个条件是什么？ 3.举例说明现实中的“公地悲剧”现象及分析其根本原因。 4.为什么政府转移支付和证券投资收益不计入 GDP？ 5.什么是自然失业率？其影响因素有哪些？ 6.北京时间 2017 年 4 月 27 日，美国公布了 1986 年以来力度最大的减税计划：美国联邦企业所得税税率从 35%下调至 15%，个人所得税级数从 7 级减至 3 级，最高税率从 39.6%降至 35%，试用 AD-AS 分析框架分析美国减税的政策效应。

华南理工大学 868经济学 (含宏观、微观) 历年真题及参考答案

华南理工大学868经济学(含宏观、微观))历年真题及参考答案一、考试目的：《经济学》作为全日制经济学学术型硕士学位入学考试课目，主要考察考生掌握经济学基本理论与基本知识的水平，注重考查考生应用经济学基本原理与方法分析现实经济现象与解决经济问题的能力，达到甄别优秀考生以进一步深入学习经济学的目的。

二、考试性质与范围：本考试是一种测试考生掌握经济学基本理论与基本知识的参照性水平考试。

考试范围包括微观经济学和宏观经济学。

三、考试基本要求经济学考试在考查基本知识与基本理论的基础上，注重考查考生经济学原理与方法分析和解决实际问题的能力。

考生应能：1. 准确地再认或再现微观经济学和宏观经济学的有关知识。

2. 正确理解和掌握学科的有关范畴、规律和论断。

3. 运用有关原理，解释和论证某种观点，辨明理论是非。

4. 准确、恰当地使用经济学的专业术语，文字通顺，层次清楚，有论有据，合乎逻辑地表述与分析实际经济问题。

四、考试形式与试卷结构㈠答卷方式：闭卷，笔试。

答案答在答题纸上。

㈡答题时间：180分钟。

㈢各部分内容的考查比例：试卷满分为150分。

微观经济学80分，宏观经济学70分。

㈣题型比例：主要采用四个题型：概念解释30%；简答题70%；计算题20%；论述题30%。

五、考试内容：本考试包括以下部分：目录第一章引论 (3)第二章需求、供给和均衡价格 (3)第三章效用论 (12)第四章生产论 (16)第五章成本论 (18)第六章完全竞争市场 (24)第七章不完全竞争市场 (32)第八章生产要素价格的决定 (45)第九章一般均衡论和福利经济学 (47)第十章博弈论初步 (47)第十一章市场失灵和微观经济政策 (48)第十二章国民收入核算 (53)第十三章简单国民收入决定理论 (56)第十四章产品市场和货币市场的一般均衡 (62)第十五章宏观经济政策分析 (67)第十六章宏观经济政策实践 (75)第十七章总需求—总供给模型 (77)第十八章失业与通货膨胀 (83)第十九章开放经济下的短期经济模型 (87)第二十章经济增长和经济周期理论 (94)第二十一章宏观经济学的微观基础 (96)第二十二章宏观经济学在目前的争论和共识 (96)第一章引论经济学：研究社会如何管理自己的稀缺资源。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题827_材料科学基础

827华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料科学基础适用专业：材料科学与工程；材料工程(专硕)共8 页一、填空题：（每空0.5 分，共20 分）1、金属材料的（1 ）和（2 ）是决定材料性能的基本依据，金属材料的热处理是在明晰材料（3 ）的前提下来设计热处理工艺。

2、晶界本身的强度与温度有关。

一般情况下，若晶粒的熔点为T，则当温度低于T/2 时，晶界强度（4 ）晶内强度；当温度高于T/2 时，晶界强度（5 ）晶内强度，晶粒形成粘滞流动，使材料形成蠕变变形。

3、碳钢经奥氏体化后经过冷至C 曲线中珠光体和马氏体线之间的区域保温将形成贝氏体，保温温度接近珠氏体转变温度时，形成的组织是（6 ）；保温温度接近马氏体转变温度时，形成的组织是（7 ），等温淬火热处理希望获得的组织是（8 ）。

4、下图立方晶系中，ABC 面和ADEF 面的晶面指数分别为（9 ）和（10 ），这两个面所在晶带轴指数为（11 ）。

5、置换固溶体的溶解度与原子尺寸因素、（12 ）因素、原子价因素和晶体结构有关。

6、室温下Fe 的晶体结构类型为（13 ），它的晶格常数为0.2863nm，原子半径为（14 ）。

7、α-Fe 转变为γ-Fe 时，体积会（15 ），这是因为（16 ）；γ-Fe 的（17 ）间隙比（18 ）间隙大，奥氏体中碳原子位于（19 ）间隙中。

8、组元A、B 在液态和固态都无限互溶，它们形成的相图称为（20 ）相图。

如平衡分配系数K0<1，则可判断组元（21 ）的熔点较高。

9、刃型位错既可以作（22 ）运动，又可以作（23 ）运动；而螺型位错只能作（24 ）运动。

10、冷变形金属低温回复时，主要是（25 ）密度下降；高温回复时，主要发生（26 ）过程。

11、金属再结晶后的晶粒大小与（27 ）、原始晶粒大小、（28 ）和杂质等有关。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。

华南理工大学考研08-10年技术经济学专业课试题

大题以零分计。）
1. 投资方案的净现值随着基准收益率增大而增大。
（）
2. 名义利率为 12%，当复利期为季度时，实际年利率大于名义利率。（）
3. 两投资方案比选，采用投资增额净现值法与采用投资增额内部收益率法
比选结果是一致的。
（）
4. 动态投资回收期就是净现金流量积累为零的年限。
（）
5. 若两现金流量在 i =20%时等值，则它们在 i =10%时也应等值。（）
第3页
总成本为 250000 元；当生产 6500 台时，总成本为 262000 元。该企业设备的生产能力可达到 7000 台。试根据以上资料计算该企业盈亏平衡时的产量。（8 分）
2．某投资方案净现金流量如下表所示，若基准收益率为 10%，试计算此投
资方案的净现值，并以净现值指标判断此投资方案是否可行。
D. 没有偏向
14. 对于企业生存最重要的是（）。
A. 利润
B. 资产
C. 现金流量
D. 存货
15. 以下属于投资项目静态评价指标的是（
）
A．投资利润率
B．投资利税率
C．静态投资回收期
D．净年值
三、计算分析题（必须写出计算过程和相应的答案。共 60 分。） 1. 某企业从统计资料可知，某产品销售单价为 45 元。当生产 6000 台时，
（2）此技术方案的动态投资回收期（从建设期算起）。
年末 0 1 23 4 5 6 7 8
投资（万元） 2500 300
年净收入（万
500 500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
元）
（15 分）
5. 加工某种产品有两种备选方案，生产年限为 8 年。方案甲需初始投资 40

2022年华南理工大学832经济学考研复习资料(内含考研历年考试试题)

2022年华南理工大学832经济学考研复习资料（内含考研历年考试试题）《华南理工大学考研832经济学复习全析（含真题与答案，共六册）》由致远华工考研网依托多年丰富的教学与辅导经验，组织教学研发团队与华南理工大学经济与贸易学院经济学专业的优秀研究生共同合作编写而成。

全书内容紧凑权威细致，编排结构科学合理，为参加华南理工大学考研的考生量身定做的必备专业课资料。

《华南理工大学考研832经济学(含宏观、微观)复习全析》全书编排根据华工官方参考书目：《微观经济学：现代观点》哈尔·R.范里安，格致出版社（主要参考书）；《微观经济学十八讲》平新乔，北京大学出版社；《宏观经济学》多恩布什等，中国人民大学出版社（主要参考书）；《宏观经济学：现代观点》罗伯特·J·巴罗，格致出版社真题与答案部分：2005-2018年华南理工大学832经济学考研真题试卷；2008-2018年华南理工大学832经济学考研真题答案详解；重难点精析部分：涵盖了上述四本教材《微观经济学：现代观点》（范里安）、《宏观经济学：现代观点》（巴罗）、《微观经济学十八讲》（平新乔）、《宏观经济学》（多恩布什）相关西方经济学、微观经济学、宏观经济学的重难点内容。

《华南理工大学考研832经济学复习全析（含真题与答案）》通过提供院系专业相关考研内部信息，总结近年考试内容与考录情况，系统梳理核心考点与重难点知识点，本文摘自致远华工考研网，并对历年真题进行透彻解析，令考生不再为信息匮乏而烦恼，同时极大提高了复习效率，让复习更有针对性。

适用院系：经济与贸易学院：【区域经济学、金融学、产业经济学、国际贸易学、数量经济学】适用科目：832经济学(含宏观、微观)一、内部信息必读：网罗华工该专业的考研各类内外部信息，有助于考生高屋建瓴，深入了解华工对应专业的考研知识及概况，做到纵观全局、备考充分。

本文摘自致远华工考研网，内容包括：院校简介、专业分析、师资情况、历年报录统计、就业概况、学费与奖学金、住宿情况、其他常见问题。

华南理工大学868经济学(含宏观、微观)2014-2018年考研专业课真题试卷

精都教育——全国 100000 考生的选择
我们的梦想，为成就更多人的梦想
华南理工大学研究生入学考试试题
原版考研真题试卷
更多考研真题、笔记、模拟、题库、讲义资料就上精都考研网 /
华南理工大学2018年考研专业课真题试卷（原版）
四、论述题（每题 20 分，共 40 分） 1.评述经济学中关于经济周期成因的主要观点。 2.简述供给学派的主要观点及其对中国供给侧结—全国 100000 考生的选择
我们的梦想，为成就更多人的梦想
华南理工大学研究生入学考试试题
原版考研真题试卷
更多考研真题、笔记、模拟、题库、讲义资料就上精都考研网 /
华南理工大学2017年考研专业课真题试卷（原版）
868 华南理工大学
2017 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：经济学（含宏观、微观）适用专业：国民经济学；区域经济学；金融学；产业经济学；国际贸易学；数量经济学
第 1页
华南理工大学2018年考研专业课真题试卷（原版）
三、计算题（第 1 题 12 分，第 2 题 8 分，共 20 分） 1.假设：小麦需求函数为 QD =35.5 2.66P ，供给函数为 QS =18+2.4P ，为了保护农场主利益，政府设定最低价格为 3.7 元，并按此价格收购市场上剩余小麦。（1）求政府收购的小麦数量。（2）求消费者剩余变动量。（3）求生产者剩余变动量。（4）求政府的成本。 2.某商品市场需求曲线为 P 100 2Q ，市场有 2 个厂商，其总成本函数都为TC(q) 4q ，q 为厂商生产数量。（1）求古诺均衡解。（2）求厂商 1 为领导者，厂商 2 为追随者的斯塔克尔伯格解（产量领导）。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题834_技术经济学

万元人民销售收入800物料与燃料动力成本100人力成本200外委加工100固定生产成本130毛利270固定销售成本150利润1204某公司欲引进一项还有10年有效期的专利专利收费按每销售一件产品支付250元专利费产品每年可销售1000件发明人要求连续三年年初等额支付完成若年复利率为10每年计息一次计算发明者每年要求等额支付的金额
834
华南理工大学
2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：技术经济学
适用专业：技术经济及管理
共3页
一、计算题
1、某建设项目评估，计算期内净现金流量如下表所示，若行业基准贴现率为10%，试计算此投资方案的净现值与净现值比率，并判断方案是否可行。（12分）
3、某餐厅年销售收入状态如下所示，求该餐厅每月营业额要超过多少才能盈利，若单位客户消费额为60元/人，请估算每天至少需要服务多少客户才能保本（18分）
项目金额（单位：万元人民币）销售收入800
物料与燃料动力成本100
人力成本200
外委加工100
固定生产成本130
毛利270
固定销售成本150
利润120
4、某公司欲引进一项还有10年有效期的专利，专利收费按每销售一件产品支付250
元专利费，产品每年可销售1000件，发明人要求连续三年年初等额支付完成，若年复利率为10%，每年计息一次，计算发明者每年要求等额支付的金额。若公司只答应连续三年年初等额支付50万元专利使用费，相当于每销售一件产品要支付给发明人多少专利使用费（12分）
11.436
13.579
15.937
(P/A,i,n)
0.909
1.736

华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年经济学(含宏观、微观)

华南理工大学
2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：经济学(含宏观、微观)
适用专业：国民经济学；区域经济学；金融学；产业经济学；国际贸易学；数量经济学；统计学
华南理工大学
2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：经济学（含宏观、微观）
适用专业：国民经济学；区域经济学；金融学；产业经济学；国际贸易学；数量经济学
华南理工大学
2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：经济学(含宏观、微观)
适用专业：区域经济学；金融学；产业经济学；国际贸易学；数量经济学。

(仅供参考)16-18华南理工大学金融431真题

华南理工大学
2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：金融学综合
适用专业：金融(专硕)
华南理工大学
2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：金融学综合
适用专业：金融（专硕）
华南理工大学
2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：金融学综合
适用专业：金融(专硕)。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题860_普通物理(含力、热、电、光学)

-m2 V 1 .线温等为CG线虚中图’hu la－'P Lw h －G R 俨l i l －－L rn Ef $4过Ch ！－OL W ’r E’1程判是Md 川热吸口玉咄L 还’过体－线热气，肉强吸阳山 l 姥色刷拙J ：i线柑川机川川执…M热勾虚两这断 · 队放但吸 F F 吸程中惆热程程放叩2阳－1 ．860华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回〉。

d科目名称：普通物理（含力、热、电、光学）适用专业：理论物理：凝聚态物理：声学：光学；材料科学与工程：物理电子学：共 f 页。

;7' v材料工程（专硕）一、选择题（共 48 分，每题 4 分〉l 、几个不同倾角的光滑斜面，有共同的底边，顶点也在同一坚直面上．若使一物倒（视为质点）从斜面上端由静止滑到下端的时间最短，则斜面的倾角应选(A) 60。

. (B) 45° . (C) 30。

.(D) 15。

．［］2、某物体的运动规律为 d v / d t = -k v 勺，式中的 k 为大于零的常量．当t = O 时，初速为 Vo ，则速度 U 与时间 t 的函数关系是(D) abc 过程和 def 过程都放热．［］6、一定量的理想气体经历二cb 过程时吸热500 J. 则经历 cbda 过程时，吸热为(A ）马200 J. (B ）一700 J.p （×105 Pa)(A) v=kt 2 叫(C) -400 J .(D) 700 J.。

V （ 10-3 m3)1 kt2 1(C) 一＝－－：：－－＋一’ ， U 二L Vo3、一质量为 m 的质点，在半径为 R 的半球形容器中，由静止开始自边缘上的 A 点滑下，到达最低点 B 时，它对容器的正压力为N. 则质点自 A℃!57［］47、一铜板厚度为 D= l .OO mm ，放罩在磁感强度为 B= 1.35 T 的匀强磁场中，磁场方｜向垂直于导体的侧表面，如图所示，现测得铜板上下两面电势差为 V=1.10×10 5 v ，己B 知铜板中自由电子数密度 n =4.20 ×102s m 3, 滑到 B 的过程中，摩擦力对其作的功为A(A）护（N 训电子电荷 e=l.60 ×10-19 c，则此铜板中的电歹争叶阳一mg ) .(D)i R( N 切）［］8、如图所示．一电荷为 q 的点电荷，以匀角速度ω作圆周运动，圆周的半径为 R. 设 t = O 时 q 所在点的坐标为 xo = R , 4、如图，两木块质量为 m1 和叫，由一轻弹簧连接，放在光滑水平桌面上，先使网木块靠近而将弹簧压紧，然后由静止释放．若在弹簧伸长到原长时，m1 的速率为 V1,则弹簧原来在压缩状态时所具有的势能是o = O ，以T , ］分别表示 x 轴和 y 轴上的单位矢景，则圆心处点的位移电流密度为：1 m1 + m2 2总二点点达-2.口._L 二sm w t Iqw『x(i )(A) 一m 1V12(B) (A)(B)一一一τcos mt J2 m1 4 π R 24πRqw -qw-1 m1 + m2 z(C)一一k(D)一丁（sin wti - c os mtj) (C)三（m1 + m2 ) V 1 .(D ) -m1V 1 . 4πR 22 m24πR第页第 2 页\Y i u )－E Er 饨A ～「， D G的一市民川r E F图nu 品UF 历经。

华南理工大学834技术经济学2018年考研专业课真题试卷

华南理工大学经济学真题及部分答案详解

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题838_高分子化学

华南理工大学2018年《868经济学(含宏观、微观)》考研专业课真题试卷

华南理工大学 868经济学 (含宏观、微观) 历年真题及 参考答案

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题827_材料科学基础

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

华南理工大学考研08-10年技术经济学专业课试题

2022年华南理工大学832经济学考研复习资料(内含考研历年考试试题)

华南理工大学868经济学(含宏观、微观)2014-2018年考研专业课真题试卷

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题834_技术经济学

华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年经济学(含宏观、微观)

(仅供参考)16-18华南理工大学金融431真题

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题860_普通物理(含力、热、电、光学)

华南理工大学 868经济学 (含宏观、微观) 历年真题及参考答案