Can I get some help with a few questions?

- anonymous

Can I get some help with a few questions?

- Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com

Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)

- jamiebookeater

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

- zzr0ck3r

?

- anonymous

One moment, need to screenshot!

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

- UnkleRhaukus

two angles are supplementary, iff they add to 180°

- anonymous

Okay..

- UnkleRhaukus

iff \(\angle FEA\) is supplementary to \(\angle HGD\)
\[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\]

- anonymous

Wait.. I don't understand...

- UnkleRhaukus

consider the first option, does it agree?

- anonymous

Yes?..

- UnkleRhaukus

What is it that you don't understand?

- anonymous

Just the overall question. It's weird.
It's not option A or B is what I'm getting so far, right?

- UnkleRhaukus

(check carefully now)
Does:
\[\text m\angle FEA+\text m\angle HGD = 180°\]
agree with option one?

- anonymous

It.. it's not 180, I think..?

- 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

there are only two angles to consider;
the big one : ∠FEB = ∠HGD
and the little angle : ∠FEA = ∠HGC

- UnkleRhaukus

where any pair, of one big and one little angle, will always add to 180°,

- anonymous

So A is not true, which makes it the right answer?

- UnkleRhaukus

but why is A not true?

- anonymous

Because the angles are too big, right?

- UnkleRhaukus

yeah,
big angle + big angle ≠ 180°

- anonymous

Okay, I kinda get it...

- anonymous

What about this problem?

##### 1 Attachment

- UnkleRhaukus

(unless all the angles were exactly 90°, which doesn't fit the diagram )

- UnkleRhaukus

[if i remember correctly]
alternate angles are equal,
corresponding angles are equal,
vertically opposite angles are equal ,
&
co-interior angles are supplementary.

- UnkleRhaukus

can you find the angles in the first option on the diagram?

- UnkleRhaukus

|dw:1434794031396:dw|

- anonymous

In the first one, they look equal to me.. unless I am not understanding this properly.

- UnkleRhaukus

if they look equal (congruent), are they
alternate angles?
corresponding angles?
vertically opposite angles ?

- anonymous

Alternate, I think..

- UnkleRhaukus

u can't see any angles alternate to angle EIA

- anonymous

So it's the first option, yes?

- UnkleRhaukus

|dw:1434794616346:dw|

- UnkleRhaukus

|dw:1434794679515:dw|

- UnkleRhaukus

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

Oh, so they're opposite angles?.. so they are congruent.

- UnkleRhaukus

Yes!

- anonymous

Then there's this... I was always bad at these in class.

##### 1 Attachment

- UnkleRhaukus

what is the difference between line 3, and line 4?

- anonymous

They're adding segments together and asking if they're congruent.

- UnkleRhaukus

3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF
4. AB + BC = DE + EF
What has happened ?

- anonymous

They're.. substituting I think?

- UnkleRhaukus

what has been substituted for what?

- anonymous

The concurrency, I think.

- anonymous

*congruent

- UnkleRhaukus

nope

- UnkleRhaukus

3. AB + BC + CD = CD + DE + EF
4. AB + BC = DE + EF
how are theses lines different ?

- anonymous

Uh.. I have no legitimate clue.

- UnkleRhaukus

read line 3. and then read line 4.

- anonymous

It removed two of the segments, I see that much.. :/

- anonymous

@TillLindemann no CD

- UnkleRhaukus

yeas, CD has been taken away from both sides of the equation

- anonymous

Okay.. so it's asking if they're still congruent without them, no?

- anonymous

So would it not be D?..

- UnkleRhaukus

The question is , what reason justifies us being able to take away some term that appears on both sides of the equation

- anonymous

So D, yes? I'm so confused.

- UnkleRhaukus

another word for take-away or minusing, is subtraction

- anonymous

Wait. So.. It's C?

- UnkleRhaukus

does that makes sense now?

- anonymous

Yes, because they removed one of the segments, it makes it the Subtraction property, right?

- anonymous

This is one of those ones where you have to do a bunch of weird nitpicking to get the correct answer...

##### 1 Attachment

- 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

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

Not sure, but I think it's linear and angle BED...

- anonymous

Er, not angle.. but.. you get what I'm trying to say.

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- UnkleRhaukus

what is the linear angle theorem?

- anonymous

|dw:1434796331473:dw|
This right?

- UnkleRhaukus

that might be the linear angle theorem, but i don't see how it relates to this question

- UnkleRhaukus

you got \(\angle AEC \cong \angle BED \) (by the vertical angle theorem) right

- UnkleRhaukus

the linear angle theorem is not about congruence (equality), it is a about supplementary angles

- anonymous

Okay, but?...

- UnkleRhaukus

compare the two lines of this question

- anonymous

Is it vertical?..

- UnkleRhaukus

yer

- anonymous

And still angle BED, right?

- UnkleRhaukus

yep they are vertically opposite angles in each case

- anonymous

This one is really long as well.

##### 1 Attachment

- UnkleRhaukus

what do you think

- anonymous

Well, I've had this question multiple times before and I always get it wrong...

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- UnkleRhaukus

i'm not going to tell you what the answer is

- anonymous

I know that, but I haven't a single clue on how to find it..

- UnkleRhaukus

Which parts of the closed passage do you not understand exactly?

- anonymous

Well, this whole section really.

- UnkleRhaukus

first line says
some lines are parallel, some angles are equal. prove some other angle are supplementry

- anonymous

Yes, I think the first answer to the big question is transitive..

- UnkleRhaukus

i think that is right,
what about the next one

- anonymous

Vertical maybe...

- UnkleRhaukus

vertical angles are congrunent (not supplementary )

- anonymous

It's not linear, right?.. or is it?

- UnkleRhaukus

Which do you think ?

- UnkleRhaukus

|dw:1434798665055:dw|

- anonymous

I think it's linear but I have no clue.. could be the congruent supplements one though.

- UnkleRhaukus

the congruent supplements theorem involves three angles
you have plenty of clues

- anonymous

So then it is linear, no?

- UnkleRhaukus

why not, eh?

- anonymous

And I think the last one is substitution, because it's assuming, and substituting numbers into the whole thing.

- UnkleRhaukus

Yep substitution is right

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

I think it's the first option...

- UnkleRhaukus

that doesn't prove the what you are trying to prove

- UnkleRhaukus

the last line of the proof should say something about what you are trying to prove

- anonymous

The congruent supplement one, yeah.. I think that's the right answer.

- 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

Now I feel like it's more option D...

- anonymous

B?...

- UnkleRhaukus

stop guessing

- anonymous

Well I don't understand.

- UnkleRhaukus

\[\angle 3\cong \cdots\cong\angle6, ...\]

- anonymous

That doesn't help me.

- anonymous

Because there is no option with 3 and 6 in it at the same time.

- UnkleRhaukus

you have
\[\angle 3\cong \angle 7, ...\]
you need
\[\angle 7\cong\angle6, ...\]

- anonymous

So it'd D.

- UnkleRhaukus

Um, yes it is.

- 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.