People are, on the whole, poor at considering background information when making individual decisions. At first glance this might seem like a strength that【B1】___the ability to make judgments which are unbiased by【B2】factors. But Dr. Uri Simonsoho speculated that an inability to consider the big【B3】was leading decision-makers to be biased by the daily samples of information they were working with.【B4】, he theorized that a judge【B5】of appearing too soft【B6】crime might be more likely to send someone to prison【B7】___he had already sentenced five or six other defendants only to forced community service on that day.

To【B8】___this idea, he turned to the university-admissions process. In theory, the【B9】of an applicant should not depend on the few others【B10】randomly for interview during the same day, but Dr. Simonsoho suspected the truth was【B11】___

He studied the results of 9, 323 MBA interviews【B12】___by 31 admissions officers. The interviewers had【B13】applicants on a scale of one to five. This scale【B14】numerous factors into consideration. The scores were【B15】used in conjunction with an applicant’s score on the Graduate Management Admission Test, or GMAT, a standardized exam which is【B16】___out of 800 points, to make a decision on whether to accept him or her.

Dr. Simonsoho found if the score of the previous candidate in a daily series of interviewees was 0. 75 points or more higher than that of the one【B17】___that, then the score for the next applicant would【B18】by an average of 0. 075 points. This might sound small, but to【B19】the effects of such a decrease a candidate could need 30 more GMAT points than would otherwise have been【B20】___.

【B20】