To determine the most accurate information and planning for the construction needs of the two cities based on their likelihood of experiencing earthquakes and the associated extra spending for earthquake safety design, we need to analyze the context provided (the map, which is described but not visible), focusing on the proximity to tectonic plate boundaries.
Generally, cities located near tectonic plate boundaries are at a higher risk of experiencing earthquakes and thus would require more investment in earthquake safety designs in their building plans. Conversely, cities further away from these boundaries would experience fewer earthquakes and could plan for lower spending on safety measures.
Based on this understanding, the most logical conclusion would be:
- If City X is near tectonic plate boundaries, it would have a high likelihood of an earthquake and therefore should have a high extra spending for earthquake safety.
- If City Y is located further from these boundaries, it would have a little likelihood of an earthquake and require low extra spending for earthquake safety.
Given this reasoning, the most accurate table aligning with these assumptions would be:
A. City | Likelihood of Earthquake | Extra Spending for Earthquake Safety Design --- | --- | --- X | great | high Y | little | low
This table reflects that City X has a high risk of earthquakes and hence needs significant investment in safety measures, while City Y has a low risk and can plan for minimal spending.