| 1 |
Which implication can be logically inferred if climate feedback mechanisms are underestimated in predictive models?
|
2. Future climate risks could be systematically underpredicted |
|
If feedbacks are underestimated, models fail to capture amplification effects, leading to projections that are too mild. |
1 Climate feedback theory
2 Earth system sensitivity concept |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 2 |
If current climate models fail to adequately represent cloud–aerosol interactions, which outcome is most likely?
|
3. Misrepresentation of radiative forcing effects |
|
Cloud–aerosol interactions strongly affect Earth’s radiation balance; poor representation distorts forcing estimates. |
1 Radiative forcing theory
2 Aerosol–cloud interaction models |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 3 |
Based on the article’s insights, which scenario would most challenge existing climate adaptation strategies?
|
2. Increased climate variability combined with rapid socio-economic change |
|
Simultaneous physical and social instability overwhelms adaptation capacity. |
Vulnerability–exposure–adaptive capacity framework |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 4 |
Why does the article suggest that regional climate projections must be interpreted differently from global averages?
|
3. Local feedbacks and vulnerabilities vary significantly |
|
Regional outcomes depend on localized processes not visible in global means. |
1 Regional climate dynamics
2 Downscaling theory
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 5 |
Which factor would most strengthen confidence in long-term climate projections discussed in the article?
|
2. Expanding historical observational datasets |
|
Long observational records improve validation and trend detection. |
Model validation and hindcasting
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 6 |
From an engineering perspective, which climate insight most directly informs infrastructure design resilience?
|
3. Increased frequency of extreme events |
|
Infrastructure must withstand extremes, not averages. |
Engineering risk and resilience theory |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 7 |
How does integrating ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere data improve climate risk assessment?
|
3. By capturing coupled system dynamics |
|
Climate risks emerge from interactions among Earth system components. |
1 Earth system science
2 Coupled climate modeling |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 8 |
Which conclusion about mitigation efforts is best supported by the article’s analysis?
|
3. Delayed action increases system-level risks |
|
Feedbacks and inertia increase damage with delayed mitigation. |
1 Path dependency
2 Climate tipping point theory
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 9 |
Why is transparent communication of uncertainty essential for climate-related decision making?
|
3. It supports risk-informed planning |
|
Transparent uncertainty enables probabilistic decision-making. |
1 Risk communication theory
2 Decision-making under uncertainty |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 10 |
Based on the article, which research direction would most enhance future climate preparedness?
|
3. Coupled human–Earth system modeling |
|
Human actions and Earth responses must be modeled together. |
Socio-ecological systems theory |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 11 |
When optimizing CRISPR therapies, which trade-off is most critical to manage?
|
2. Precision versus delivery efficiency |
|
Highly precise editing is useless if delivery to target cells fails. |
1 Engineering optimization trade-offs
2 Gene delivery constraints
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 12 |
If a delivery system triggers a strong immune response, what is the most likely consequence for CRISPR therapy effectiveness?
|
2. Reduced therapeutic durability |
|
Immune responses clear edited cells or vectors prematurely. |
Immunogenicity in gene therapy |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 13 |
Why does the article argue that off-target analysis must be context-specific rather than universal?
|
2. Gene expression environments vary by tissue |
|
Off-target risks depend on tissue-specific chromatin and expression. |
Context-dependent genome editing |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 14 |
Which factor most limits the immediate scalability of CRISPR-based therapies?
|
3. Manufacturing, delivery, and regulatory complexity |
|
Scaling safe, regulated production is a major bottleneck. |
Translational medicine pipeline theory |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 15 |
Why are monogenic diseases considered more suitable initial targets for CRISPR therapy development?
|
2. Disease mechanisms are genetically well-defined |
|
Single-gene causation simplifies targeting and evaluation. |
1 Monogenic disease model
2 Precision medicine
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 16 |
Which consideration most strongly justifies cautious progression to late-stage clinical trials?
|
3. Potential irreversible genetic consequences |
|
Permanent DNA changes demand higher safety thresholds. |
Biomedical risk–benefit analysis |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 17 |
Why does the article suggest that CRISPR challenges existing regulatory frameworks?
|
3. It combines biological intervention with permanent genetic modification |
|
CRISPR blurs lines between drugs, devices, and genetic alteration. |
Regulatory science for advanced therapies |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 18 |
Which ethical concern is most directly linked to the technical capability of CRISPR?
|
3. Germline modification risks |
|
CRISPR’s power raises ethical concerns when edits are heritable. |
Bioethics of human genome editing
|
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 19 |
What development would most accelerate responsible clinical translation of CRISPR therapies?
|
3. Improved delivery specificity and safety profiling |
|
Better targeting reduces risk and increases regulatory confidence. |
Safe-by-design biomedical engineering |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|
| 20 |
Based on the figure and the discussion in the article, which consideration most strongly explains why ex vivo CRISPR-based gene therapy has progressed faster toward clinical translation than many in vivo approaches?
|
2. Gene editing performed ex vivo allows verification of editing efficiency and safety before reinfusion |
|
The figure clearly contrasts in vivo and ex vivo gene therapy:
1. In vivo therapy
• CRISPR is delivered directly into the patient
• Relies on viral or nanoparticle vectors
• Limited control once administered
• Difficult to verify editing outcomes inside the body
2. Ex vivo therapy
• Cells (e.g., HSCs, T cells) are removed from the patient
• Edited outside the body
• Cells are tested, selected, and validated before reinfusion
Because of this, ex vivo CRISPR therapies progress faster clinically because researchers can:
1. Verify editing efficiency
2. Screen for off-target mutations
3. Select only correctly edited cells
4. Reduce systemic and immune risks
|
1. Risk-Control Hierarchy in Biomedical Engineering
2. Ex Vivo Cell Therapy Framework (e.g., CAR-T precedent)
3. Translational Medicine Risk Mitigation Model |
7 |
-.50
-.25
+.25
เต็ม
0
-35%
+30%
+35%
|