Two different cities on the Asian continent are experiencing population growth, and must construct more buildings. The map below shows the location of the cities. The thick black lines represent tectonic plate boundaries.

To determine the most accurate information and planning for each city based on tectonic plate boundaries and the associated risks of earthquakes, we need to consider the following:

1. **Likelihood of Earthquake**: Generally, cities located near tectonic plate boundaries have a higher likelihood of experiencing earthquakes. If one city is near a major fault line, it will likely have a greater chance of experiencing seismic activity.

2. **Extra Spending for Earthquake Safety Design**: If a city has a higher likelihood of earthquakes, it would understandably require more investment in safety designs to minimize the impact of potential earthquakes.

Given these criteria, let's analyze the options:

- **Option :
- City X: Likelihood of Earthquake - average; Extra Spending - high
- City Y: Likelihood of Earthquake - average; Extra Spending - low
- This suggests both cities are equally at risk but have a different approach to spending, which doesn't match reality if one city is near a tectonic plate boundary.

- **Option B**:
- City X: Likelihood of Earthquake - little; Extra Spending - little to none
- City Y: Likelihood of Earthquake - average; Extra Spending - low
- This indicates a lower risk for City X, which does not align with proximity to tectonic boundaries.

- **Option C**:
- City X: Likelihood of Earthquake - great; Extra Spending - high
- City Y: Likelihood of Earthquake - little; Extra Spending - low
- This suggests City X is at high risk and would spend significantly, while City Y has low risk.

- **Option D**:
- City X: Likelihood of Earthquake - little; Extra Spending - little to none
- City Y: Likelihood of Earthquake - great; Extra Spending - high
- This reflects a high risk for City Y, which would necessitate significant spending but places City X inaccurately as low risk.

Based on the general understanding of cities affected by tectonic plate boundaries, **Option C** makes the most sense. If one city is at higher risk for earthquakes (presumably close to tectonic boundaries), it should have high spending on safety measures, while the other city has little to no risk.

Thus, **the most accurate table is Option C**:
- City X: Likelihood of Earthquake - great; Extra Spending - high
- City Y: Likelihood of Earthquake - little; Extra Spending - low.