In May 2008, a major earthquake hit Sichuan in the south west of China, it was estimated that around 69 000 to 80 000 people were killed and buildings collapsed with people in them information from an OCR science booklet, a news sheet. In my case study, I will be writing about Should we spend more money on predicting for an earthquake than on preparing a town for an earthquake I will do this by discussing different point of views of people if they agree or disagree with the statement above and use their opinion as evidence. In the end of the case study, I will have made my point clear. What is an earthquake, and what causes it An earthquake is a sudden shockwave called a seismic shock (a fast movement of energy that spreads quicker than sound) which is caused by rocks being under stress by the movement of the tectonic plates at plate boundaries and eventually the stress from the rocks build up and reach breaking point. At that point, the stored up energy is released in the form of shockwaves.1 Arguments that supports the statement David Petley, who is an executive director of the Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience in the University of Durham, wrote an article in The Guardian. Petley (2012) points out an intriguing argument stating that a successful prediction would greatly reduce the loss of life, if not necessarily the economic damage, by permitting dangerous buildings to be evacuated, tsunami-prone areas to be cleared, and hospitals and rescue teams to be prepared and on standby.2 From this statement it appears that The Guardian believes a successful prediction prevents millions of lives dying or injured by an earthquake, countries wont be economically damaged as houses can get ruined by earthquakes, if people do get injured hospitals and rescue teams will be ready on standby. However, whether David Petley, from The Guardian, is in favour of prediction will be discussed later on. Dr Michael Blanpied, who serves as an Associate Coordinator of the USGS…