Bigger earthquakes occur less frequently, but a bigger quake releases more energy and does more damage. An interesting question
to ask about earthquakes (and about almost anything else!) is whether the increase in energy release and damage done is larger or smaller than the decrease in frequency as one looks at bigger earthquakes. Asked a different way, is most of the damage done by the many little earthquakes or by the few big earthquakes? A) Most of the damage is done by the many, little earthquakes.
B) Earthquakes only damage Coke machines, under an exclusive contract with Pepsi.
C) Most of the damage is done by the few, big earthquakes.
D) Earthquakes don't do any damage, so this is a silly question.
E) The drop-off in frequency just balances the rise in energy, so all earthquake sizes contribute equally to global earthquake damages
C) Most of the damage is done by the few, big earthquakes.
Explanation:
As the text indicates, bigger earthquakes, which take place less frequently than smaller earthquakes, are the ones that cause the most damage because they liberate way more energy. Smaller earthquakes are a more common phenomenon, but they implicate less release of energy and thus less damage.
In Africa not all places are able to enforce laws or provide basic goods and services to its citizens because of high crime rates, political corruption, ect.
