题目内容
ABC会计师事务所接受委托对W公司(化工企业)的2007年度财务报表审计，项目负责人为张敏，在了解被审计单位及其环境中遇到下列若干问题，请代张敏做出判断。 注册会计师张敏了解W公司的经营活动，可以有助于其识别W公司( )。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
ABC会计师事务所注册会计师李明在审计天星公司货币资金时出现以下情况，请代为做出正确选择。 注册会计师李明负责对天星公司2007年度财务报表的银行存款项目进行审计。天星公司编制的2007年12月末银行存款余额调节表显示存在80 000元的未达账项，其中包括天星公司已付而银行未付的材料采购款40 000元。李明执行的以下审计程序中，可能为该材料采购款未达账项的真实性提供审计证据的有( )。
注册会计师张敏负责对海洋公司2007年度财务报表进行审计，在完成审计工作时，张敏需要考虑以下事项，请代为做出正确判断。 被审计单位管理层应根据注册会计师的具体要求在管理层声明书中就以下内容作出相应的声明，但其中( )的表述是不恰当的。
(每小题只有一个正确答案，请从每小题的备选答案中选出一个你认为正确的答案)甲公司是非上市公司，由X会计师事务所负责对甲公司2007年度财务报表进行审计，A注册会计师担任项目负责人。在考虑执业过程中有关职业道德规范的相关问题时，A注册会计师遇到以下事项，请代为做出正确的专业判断。 下列选项中，属于X会计师事务所防范措施中具体防范措施的是( )。
Do animals have fights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. Actually,it isn’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human fights, which is something the world does not have. On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. Some philosophers argue that fights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore animals cannot have fights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd; for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people for instance, to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it: how do you reply to somebody who says I don’t like this contractThe point is this: without agreement on the fights of people, arguing about the fights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans ,or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at allMany deny it. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely logical. In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is fight to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be enco It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all.
微信支付 
支付宝支付