In what way does "contain" differ from "completely contain"?

The distinction between "contain" and "completely contain" lies primarily in the nature of the spatial relationship between the features being described. When a feature is said to "contain" another, it means that the inner feature exists entirely within the outer feature, but their boundaries may touch or even intersect at specific points without necessarily overlapping. This allows for scenarios where two features can share a boundary but still retain their individual existence without one being fully enveloped by the other.

In contrast, "completely contain" refers to a stricter definition where one feature must fully enclose another with no parts of the inner feature extending outside of the outer feature. Therefore, it requires that the inner feature lies entirely within the bounds of the outer feature, with no shared boundary that would merely touch.

The other choices address aspects that do not capture the essence of the distinction accurately. For instance, one option suggests complete overlap, which is precisely what "completely contain" is about, while the idea of ignoring boundaries does not apply since boundaries are essential in understanding spatial relations. Lastly, the assertion that containment only works on linear features is incorrect, as this spatial relationship applies to various geometrical forms, not just lines. Thus, the correct answer accurately reflects the nuanced difference