Test yourself on Tectonic Hazards with exam style questions, marked instantly.
Flashcards that come back just before you would forget them.
A revision plan that remembers what you know and shows what to do next.
See which topics you have nailed and which need another look.
Quiz yourself on Tectonic HazardsGet your flashcardsBuild my revision planTrack my progress💡 Exam Tips for Tectonic Hazards
🎯 Always Name Both Case Studies
- Chile 2010 = your High-Income Country (HIC) earthquake example
- Nepal 2015 = your Low-Income Country (LIC) earthquake example
- Use them as a pair for any comparison question — one HIC, one LIC, specific statistics for each
- Never say "a developed country" — say "Chile (2010, 8.8 Mw)"
📝 "Because" is Your Most Important Word
- Level 1 answer: "9,000 people died in Nepal." (0–1 marks)
- Level 2 answer: "9,000 people died in Nepal because buildings were not earthquake-resistant." (partial marks)
- Level 3 answer: "Around 9,000 people died in Nepal because traditional unreinforced brick and stone construction — typical of a country with GDP per capita of ~$700 — collapses readily during seismic shaking, whereas Chile's strict building codes (enforced since the 1960 Valdivia earthquake) meant modern structures remained standing despite a 32-times-more-powerful event." (full marks)
⚠️ Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Describing what happened (narrative) rather than explaining why impacts differed (analysis)
- Forgetting secondary effects — landslides, disease, economic disruption after Nepal can score separate marks
- Saying Chile "got lucky" — it was strategic investment in preparedness, not luck
- Confusing the magnitude scale: 8.8 is 32 times MORE powerful than 7.8, not 1.1 times
- Writing about volcanoes when the question asks about earthquakes — check the command carefully
Quick Check: Write a Level 3 sentence explaining why Nepal's death toll was higher than Chile's. Include specific evidence.
Example Level 3 answer: "Nepal's death toll of ~9,000 was far higher than Chile's ~550 despite the Chilean earthquake being 32 times more powerful, because Nepal's greater vulnerability meant the physical hazard caused far more harm. Nepal's GDP per capita of ~$700 meant the government could not enforce earthquake-resistant building codes — traditional unreinforced brick construction collapsed readily, whereas Chile's seismic codes (updated after the 1960 Valdivia earthquake) meant modern buildings survived the 8.8 Mw shaking intact. Nepal's mountainous terrain (60% inaccessible by road) also blocked rescue access for 72+ hours, while Chile's well-funded emergency services deployed 14,000 troops within hours. This comparison demonstrates that vulnerability and preparedness determine the scale of a disaster, not physical magnitude alone."
Make this stick
Signing in gives access to all PrepWise features.