Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

proofs...really suck

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
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.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

14. a 15. b 16. c 17. d 18. e
all proofs start with the same thing, so a and b would be...?
given, i know that xD

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

ok, just making sure lol
ummm. now that i'm looking at it.....i'm not quite sure what to put....
i know angle 2 is congruent to angle 4 .....ugh lol it's so obvious stuff just don't what the answer would be
I still didn't understand how are we supposed to solve the question. Do you need to label it like 1-2-3 ?
you have to list the justifications for the statements in the boxes
c. by Definition of Supplementary Angles
or c. supplementary angles add up to 180
both wil work
d. by Definition of same-side interior angles
that's seriously all i have to put for d...?
but i don't see how you can state that they're same-side interior angles without proving that the lines are parallel
e. Converse of same-side interior angles theorem
yes, anything more than that would be irrelevent/redundant for d.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question