anonymous
  • anonymous
Please Help ......
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
chestercat
  • chestercat
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
@dumbcow @radar will probably help
anonymous
  • anonymous
@dumbcow, @jim_thompson5910, @zepp , @myininaya or anyone? please

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
@Eyad would you help me?
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
a) should be the other way around, so Kendra is correct It should be RW = 2/3*RU This is because the medians meet at a point which cuts each median into two parts that are 2:1 in ratio (ie one part is double the other)
anonymous
  • anonymous
1a) In this triangle, the 3 perpendicular bisectors cross themselves @ the point W. So, you can write that : (1) : UW = (1/3)RU (2) : VW = (1/3)VS (3) : TW = (1/3)TQ You can see that : RW = RU - UW, but according to the equation (1) : UW = RU/3 RW = RU - (1/3)RU RW = (3/3)RU - (1/3)RU RW = [(3 - 1)/3]RU RW = (2/3)RU (2/3)RW = (2/3)(2/3)RU (2/3)RW = (4/9)RU So we can say that the Jordan's comment is wrong. Kendra disagrees. I'm not agree with Jordan. 1b) You can see that : QW = QT - TW, but according to the equation (3) : TW = (1/3)TQ QW = QT - (1/3)TQ QW = (3/3)QT - (1/3)TQ QW = (3/3)QT - (1/3)QT QW = [(3 - 1)/3]QT QW = [2/3]QT [2/3]QT = QW QT = (3/2)QW, if QW = 27 inches QT = (3/2) * 27 QT = 81/2 (inches)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Woah.. @thank YOu
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yw @Trexy :D
anonymous
  • anonymous
thanks @Eyad and @jim_thompson5910
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
yw
anonymous
  • anonymous
so Kendra is Correct right?
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
yes
anonymous
  • anonymous
Part B is 81/2 or 40.5
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
that's correct
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
you can verify by taking 2/3 of QT = 40.5 to get QW = 27
anonymous
  • anonymous
because its asking for Round to the nearest tenth if necessary. so for the part B it will be 40.5?
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
yes
anonymous
  • anonymous
thank you
jim_thompson5910
  • jim_thompson5910
sure thing

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.