anonymous
  • anonymous
Can I get some help with a few questions?
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.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
zzr0ck3r
  • zzr0ck3r
?
anonymous
  • anonymous
One moment, need to screenshot!
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment

Looking for something else?

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

More answers

UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
two angles are supplementary, iff they add to 180°
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
iff \(\angle FEA\) is supplementary to \(\angle HGD\) \[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
Wait.. I don't understand...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
consider the first option, does it agree?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes?..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
What is it that you don't understand?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Just the overall question. It's weird. It's not option A or B is what I'm getting so far, right?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
(check carefully now) Does: \[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\] agree with option one?
anonymous
  • anonymous
It.. it's not 180, I think..?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
I suppose the first thing you have to realize is that any angle, can only have one supplement so iff ∠FEA is supplementary to ∠HGD then effectively A = C, B= D, E=G, F=H
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
there are only two angles to consider; the big one : ∠FEB = ∠HGD and the little angle : ∠FEA = ∠HGC
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
where any pair, of one big and one little angle, will always add to 180°,
anonymous
  • anonymous
So A is not true, which makes it the right answer?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
but why is A not true?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Because the angles are too big, right?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
yeah, big angle + big angle ≠ 180°
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay, I kinda get it...
anonymous
  • anonymous
What about this problem?
1 Attachment
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
(unless all the angles were exactly 90°, which doesn't fit the diagram )
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
[if i remember correctly] alternate angles are equal, corresponding angles are equal, vertically opposite angles are equal , & co-interior angles are supplementary.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
can you find the angles in the first option on the diagram?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
|dw:1434794031396:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
In the first one, they look equal to me.. unless I am not understanding this properly.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
if they look equal (congruent), are they alternate angles? corresponding angles? vertically opposite angles ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Alternate, I think..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
u can't see any angles alternate to angle EIA
anonymous
  • anonymous
So it's the first option, yes?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
|dw:1434794616346:dw|
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
|dw:1434794679515:dw|
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
Oh, so they're opposite angles?.. so they are congruent.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Yes!
anonymous
  • anonymous
Then there's this... I was always bad at these in class.
1 Attachment
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
what is the difference between line 3, and line 4?
anonymous
  • anonymous
They're adding segments together and asking if they're congruent.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF 4. AB + BC = DE + EF What has happened ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
They're.. substituting I think?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
what has been substituted for what?
anonymous
  • anonymous
The concurrency, I think.
anonymous
  • anonymous
*congruent
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
nope
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF 4. AB + BC = DE + EF how are theses lines different ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Uh.. I have no legitimate clue.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
read line 3. and then read line 4.
anonymous
  • anonymous
It removed two of the segments, I see that much.. :/
anonymous
  • anonymous
@TillLindemann no CD
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
yeas, CD has been taken away from both sides of the equation
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay.. so it's asking if they're still congruent without them, no?
anonymous
  • anonymous
So would it not be D?..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
The question is , what reason justifies us being able to take away some term that appears on both sides of the equation
anonymous
  • anonymous
So D, yes? I'm so confused.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
another word for take-away or minusing, is subtraction
anonymous
  • anonymous
Wait. So.. It's C?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
does that makes sense now?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes, because they removed one of the segments, it makes it the Subtraction property, right?
anonymous
  • anonymous
This is one of those ones where you have to do a bunch of weird nitpicking to get the correct answer...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Yes, the subtraction property of equality states that: if some expression is equal to some other expression, and both expressions have +some term, you can take away the +some term form both sides and the resulting expressions will still remain equal to one another A + c = c+ B (taking away c) A = B
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
Not sure, but I think it's linear and angle BED...
anonymous
  • anonymous
Er, not angle.. but.. you get what I'm trying to say.
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
what is the linear angle theorem?
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1434796331473:dw| This right?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
that might be the linear angle theorem, but i don't see how it relates to this question
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
you got \(\angle AEC \cong \angle BED \) (by the vertical angle theorem) right
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
the linear angle theorem is not about congruence (equality), it is a about supplementary angles
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay, but?...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
compare the two lines of this question
anonymous
  • anonymous
Is it vertical?..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
yer
anonymous
  • anonymous
And still angle BED, right?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
yep they are vertically opposite angles in each case
anonymous
  • anonymous
This one is really long as well.
1 Attachment
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
what do you think
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well, I've had this question multiple times before and I always get it wrong...
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
i'm not going to tell you what the answer is
anonymous
  • anonymous
I know that, but I haven't a single clue on how to find it..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Which parts of the closed passage do you not understand exactly?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well, this whole section really.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
first line says some lines are parallel, some angles are equal. prove some other angle are supplementry
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes, I think the first answer to the big question is transitive..
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
i think that is right, what about the next one
anonymous
  • anonymous
Vertical maybe...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
vertical angles are congrunent (not supplementary )
anonymous
  • anonymous
It's not linear, right?.. or is it?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Which do you think ?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
|dw:1434798665055:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
I think it's linear but I have no clue.. could be the congruent supplements one though.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
the congruent supplements theorem involves three angles you have plenty of clues
anonymous
  • anonymous
So then it is linear, no?
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
why not, eh?
anonymous
  • anonymous
And I think the last one is substitution, because it's assuming, and substituting numbers into the whole thing.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Yep substitution is right
anonymous
  • anonymous
1 Attachment
anonymous
  • anonymous
I think it's the first option...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
that doesn't prove the what you are trying to prove
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
the last line of the proof should say something about what you are trying to prove
anonymous
  • anonymous
The congruent supplement one, yeah.. I think that's the right answer.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
In this question you are trying to prove that \(\angle 3\cong \angle 6\), ... you have \(\angle 3\cong \angle 7\), ... you need something\(\cong\angle 6\), ...
anonymous
  • anonymous
Now I feel like it's more option D...
anonymous
  • anonymous
B?...
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
stop guessing
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well I don't understand.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
\[\angle 3\cong \cdots\cong\angle6, ...\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
That doesn't help me.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Because there is no option with 3 and 6 in it at the same time.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
you have \[\angle 3\cong \angle 7, ...\] you need \[\angle 7\cong\angle6, ...\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
So it'd D.
UnkleRhaukus
  • UnkleRhaukus
Um, yes it is.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Thank you. That's all I needed for now. Thanks so much for helping.

Looking for something else?

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