Here's what a teacher thought of this essay
Overall a good review of the impacts resulting from two similar earthquakes. Some weaknesses in the structuring of the essay but otherwise very good. 4 stars
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
I only found one punctuation mistake which was a capital letter on the word 'ignorance' when it wasn't the beginning of the sentence. I find this shocking in a piece of work that has been completed to such a high level. Such shows the lack of proof reading and just proof reading for the sense rather than looking deeper and checking spelling, grammar and punctuation. The technical terms were used accurately, however a further definition of MEDC and LEDC is needed to show the examiner that the student understands the classification for the two. Also, I would say that it is correctly written as MEDCs rather than MEDC's and LEDCs rather than LEDC's. I do not think that the short paragraphs work well either. One sentence cannot count as one paragraph and would suggest the student re-look at the how to formulate paragraphs. Other than this, the piece was well structured and logically written.
Level of analysis
The student offers the typical level of analysis here. I would not say that this has lowered the student's mark at all as this student has included most things that would ensure that they scored the highest possible marks. However, it does not make the student's work stand out from the crowd. Having said this, their response was clear and well developed and a strong and valid conclusion was reached with strong supporting figures.
Response to question
The student shows a clear understanding of the set question with their strong introduction and conclusion. Both clearly introduce and conclude their idea in a coherent and logical manner. The student has considered many different aspects of that would contribute to the difference between natural disasters in LEDCs and MEDCs and supports their statements with relevant material. However, I would suggest that they could highlight the difference in technology more. Such that even the earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 (around 10 years after Kobe), hit Kashmir worse than Kobe in spite of the advancement of technology in that 10 year gap. Such attention to detail would really show the examiner the level of understanding of the student and almost ensure that full marks are gained.