Geography

1. 1.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Distinguish earthquake magnitude from shaking intensity.

   [2 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. One earthquake has a source magnitude, but local effects vary with distance, ground and structures. Equal intensity here does not specify a numerical magnitude.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • Magnitude measures earthquake size related to energy release at its source.
   • Intensity describes shaking effects at a location and can vary across locations.

   Examiner tip: Do not describe magnitude as a count of casualties.

2. 2.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Calculate each district's percentage of inadequately reinforced buildings. What does the comparison show?

   [2 marks]

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Standardise counts by their denominators before comparing prevalence. R has 240 at-risk inspected structures versus S's 90, but both samples show the same proportion.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • R: 240/800 × 100 = 30%; S: 90/300 × 100 = 30%.
   • Proportions are equal although R has more inadequately reinforced buildings in absolute terms.

   Examiner tip: Equal percentages do not mean equal numbers or equal overall risk.

3. 3.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Explain why R may have greater disaster losses despite equal shaking and reinforcement percentages.

   [3 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Risk combines hazard with exposure and vulnerability. The same local shaking is not the same disaster when more people and structures are in harm's way and rescue capacity differs.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • More residents increase the number of people exposed.
   • More inadequately reinforced structures raise absolute potential damage.
   • Slower emergency access may increase consequences after collapse.

   Examiner tip: Use conditional language: this is planning evidence, not an observed death toll.

4. 4.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Explain how soft unconsolidated ground can modify shaking and damage.

   [3 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Separate amplification from liquefaction: the first concerns wave response, while the second concerns loss of ground strength under suitable saturation and shaking conditions.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • Local sediments may amplify seismic shaking relative to firm rock.
   • Water-saturated loose sediments may lose strength through liquefaction.
   • Ground deformation can damage foundations even where building design is stronger.

   Examiner tip: Liquefaction is not inevitable on every soft soil.

5. 5.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Evaluate whether a limited budget should prioritise retrofit or emergency access in R.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. First prevent avoidable collapse in high-occupancy or critical buildings, if feasible, while identifying access bottlenecks that would undermine all response. The given percentages alone cannot price either strategy.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • Retrofit can reduce structural collapse before casualties occur.
   • Access improvements aid rescue and service continuity after shaking.
   • Costs, critical facilities and implementation time affect priorities.
   • Makes a justified conditional priority or targeted combination rather than an unsupported universal choice.

   Examiner tip: A budget decision needs cost and benefit evidence not supplied here; state the missing information.

6. 6.

   Fictional earthquake planning case: in District R, 240 of 800 inspected buildings lack adequate reinforcement; District S has 90 of 300. Both are exposed to the same modelled shaking intensity. R has more residents and slower emergency access. These are invented inspection data, not real earthquake losses. Assess how reliable these inspections are for district-wide risk planning.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Inspection counts provide a useful vulnerability indicator, not a complete loss model. Check the sampling frame and link structures to people, ground conditions and lifelines before generalising.
   2. Award each point once. Accept other well-supported interpretations addressing the task.

   Marking points

   • Sampling method and whether all building types are represented affect representativeness.
   • A common reinforcement standard is needed for valid comparison.
   • Occupancy, age, soil and infrastructure data are needed beyond reinforcement.
   • Concludes what the equal sampled proportions support and what they cannot establish.

   Examiner tip: A larger sample is not automatically unbiased.

Original, unofficial practice questions from SubjectScout — not official past-paper questions.