Roger:

I agree that we need a strict interpretation, but most people are not assuming that, which is why we do get the argument when more then one quake occurs. I think there needs to be a clear definition of the rules in this regard, we can say "a quake, meaning one" "at least one quake", "two or more quakes", "multiple quakes" or ?? I think you can see what the possibilities are. The most open value is "at least one" which would be all inclusive.

Perhaps part of the confusion is not delineating what we mean from the start?