Structural Geology

A: A. This over-subtracts pore pressure and ignores stress projection onto the fault plane, leading to an unrealistically low normal stress. B. This assumes a fixed shear threshold and ignores how effective stress and orientation control slip. C. This treats cohesion as dominant when frictional sliding on pre-existing faults is usually cohesionless at depth. D. Projecting stresses gives τ/σ'n on the order of 0.6–0.7, close to Byerlee friction, so pressure increase matters.

A: A. This assumes drawings are always as-built and ignores the convention that tick defines dip direction only relative to strike. B. This confuses azimuth/dip notation with strike/dip notation commonly used on GA sections. C. This overstates ambiguity since the tick resolves dip direction even without a rule note. D. Strike/dip with tick is unambiguous, and mismatch with live data points to geometry change, not just instrumentation.

A: A. This mixes quality management rules with geomechanical reasoning that ISRM methods are built on. B. This overstates JRC’s role since it modifies, not replaces, friction parameters. C. This ignores that scale effects remain and are explicitly discussed in ISRM guidance. D. Profile matching captures geometry that controls dilation and peak shear across scales.

A: A. This skips quantifying core loss, leading to systematic underestimation of weak material. B. This assumes gouge is artefact when it often represents real shear zones. C. This reverses verification order and bakes uncertainty into the model. D. Correcting recovery before comparison keeps geometry and strength assumptions aligned.