QCAA Geography common mistakes
QCAA Geography · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to describe a spatial pattern, the candidate lists individual locations (e.g. 'earthquakes occur in Japan, Chile and Indonesia') instead of stating the general pattern (e.g. 'concentrated along plate boundaries') and then supporting it with examples.
Candidates confuse description with listing and have not practised converting a set of locations into a generalised statement; they also fear that a generalisation will be marked wrong if an exception exists.
What to do instead
Use the 'pattern + evidence' sentence frame: 'The overall pattern is [generalisation], for example [2–3 examples], with the exception of [outlier].' Practise with a world map of a hazard or a choropleth of population density, writing one such sentence before listing any detail.
The candidate answers an 'explain' question with a chain of 'because' clauses but never states the mechanism, so the response reads as a list of associated factors rather than a causal sequence.
Candidates know the vocabulary of the topic but not the underlying process, so they link factors by association rather than causation; they also run out of time and write the first associations that come to mind.
What to do instead
Before writing, draw a three-to-five step flow chart of the process (e.g. subduction → friction and locking → stress build-up → rupture → tsunami) and turn each arrow into a sentence using causal connectives ('this causes', 'as a result', 'which leads to'). Check that every link answers 'how does A produce B?'.
In questions about responding to a hazard or population challenge, the candidate describes the response (e.g. 'the government built sea walls') but does not evaluate it against criteria such as cost, equity, effectiveness or sustainability.
Candidates treat 'respond' as 'describe' and are not in the habit of applying explicit criteria; evaluation feels like opinion, which they have been told to avoid.
What to do instead
Memorise a short criteria set (effectiveness, cost, equity, sustainability, speed, community acceptance) and use a two-column table: response | judgement against criterion | evidence. Then write a judgement sentence that names the criterion and gives a reason, e.g. 'Sea walls are effective in the short term but inequitable because...'.
The candidate uses case-study detail that is generic or invented (e.g. 'a cyclone in Queensland killed many people and caused a lot of damage') rather than specific, accurate facts such as dates, magnitudes, named places and numbers.
Candidates memorise a narrative rather than a fact file, and under exam pressure they round numbers or substitute a similar event; some have studied only one case study and try to stretch it to fit any question.
What to do instead
Build a one-page fact file per case study with six fields: location, date, hazard characteristics, primary impacts (numbers), secondary impacts, responses. Rehearse recalling the file from memory in 60 seconds, and in the exam write the two or three facts you are sure of rather than approximations.
The candidate describes a photograph, map or graph in isolation ('the map shows dark colours in the north') without linking the observation to a geographical concept or to the question asked.
Candidates believe the task is to prove they can read the stimulus, so they transcribe it; they have not been taught that stimulus interpretation is a means to an end.
What to do instead
Use the 'observe–interpret–connect' routine: state what is visible, state what it means geographically, then state how it answers the question. For every stimulus sentence, ask 'so what?' and add a clause beginning 'This suggests that...' or 'This is significant because...'.
The candidate writes an unstructured response to an extended-response question: no introduction that defines terms, no signposted paragraphs, and no conclusion that returns to the question.
Candidates plan in their heads rather than on paper and run out of time, so they write everything they know in the order it occurs to them; they also mistake length for quality.
What to do instead
Spend two minutes writing a three-line plan: defined terms, two or three body points each with evidence, and a judgement. Use topic sentences that name the point, and finish with a sentence that explicitly answers the question using its key words.
The candidate confuses correlation with causation when interpreting data, e.g. concluding that because population density and flood deaths are both high in one region, density caused the deaths.
Candidates are trained to find relationships but not to interrogate them; they do not consider intervening variables such as exposure, building quality, warning systems or age structure.
What to do instead
After any relationship claim, write 'alternative explanation:' and name at least one intervening factor. Practise with scatter graphs by describing the trend, then listing two other variables that could explain it before drawing any conclusion.
The candidate answers a 'to what extent' or 'evaluate' question with a one-sided response, listing only arguments for a strategy or only impacts of a process.
Candidates equate a strong argument with a single viewpoint and worry that counter-arguments will weaken their answer; they also lack a bank of counter-evidence.
What to do instead
Use a 'however' paragraph structure: strongest argument for, strongest argument against, then a weighed judgement that states which is stronger and why. Prepare two counter-points for each major case study in advance.
The candidate misuses scale, treating a local example as if it demonstrates a global pattern, or applying a national policy to a local community without acknowledging the difference in scale.
Candidates do not distinguish between the scale of the process and the scale of the example, and question wording often shifts scale without warning.
What to do instead
Annotate every case study with its scale (local, regional, national, global) and, before writing, underline the scale demanded by the question. If the evidence is at a different scale, say so explicitly: 'Although this is a national policy, its local effect was...'.
The candidate uses evaluative language ('significant', 'severe', 'successful', 'sustainable') without defining it or giving a criterion, so the judgement cannot be assessed.
Candidates imitate textbook adjectives without knowing what threshold they imply, and they assume the marker shares their definition.
What to do instead
Define the key evaluative term in the introduction (e.g. 'successful means reducing deaths by at least half within five years') and use that definition consistently. Replace bare adjectives with 'significant in terms of [criterion] because [evidence]'.