Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

Looking for something else?

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

- anonymous

helpppppp please

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions.

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

helpppppp please

- jamiebookeater

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

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

with?

- anonymous

Use the figure to answer the question that follows:
Segments UV and WZ are parallel with line ST intersecting both at points Q and R respectively
When written in the correct order, the two-column proof below describes the statements and reasons for proving that corresponding angles are congruent:
Statements Reasons
segment UV is parallel to segment WZ Given
Points S, Q, R, and T all lie on the same line. Given
I m∠SQV + m∠VQT = 180° Substitution Property of Equality
II m∠SQT = 180° Definition of a Straight Angle
III m∠SQV + m∠VQT = m∠SQT Angle Addition Postulate
m∠VQT + m∠ZRS = 180° Same-Side Interior Angles Theorem
m∠SQV + m∠VQT = m∠VQT + m∠ZRS Substitution Property of Equality
m∠SQV + m∠VQT − m∠VQT = m∠VQT + m∠ZRS − m∠VQT
m∠SQV = m∠ZRS Subtraction Property of Equality
∠SQV ≅ ∠ZRS Definition of Congruency
Which is the most logical order of statements and reasons I, II, and III to complete the proof?
I, III, II
II, I, III
II, III, I
III, I, II

- egbeach

draw it out.

Looking for something else?

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

- anonymous

but i have no idea on how to even start to

- anonymous

i do know its prob B or C from elimination

- egbeach

try to draw it out first... it will help

- anonymous

how do i draw it out like what do you mean

- egbeach

did they give you an image?

- anonymous

oh that

- egbeach

that would help

- anonymous

- egbeach

b

- anonymous

how

- anonymous

and could you just see if i got this other one right please

- egbeach

what other one

- anonymous

The following is an incorrect flowchart proving that point L, lying on line LM which is a perpendicular bisector of segment JK, is equidistant from points J and K:
Segment JK intersects line LM at point N
Line LM is a perpendicular bisector of segment JK, Given. Two arrows are drawn from this statement to the following two statements. Angle LNK equals 90 degrees and angle LNJ equals 90 degrees, Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector. Segment JN is congruent to segment NK, Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector. Angle LNK is congruent to angle LNJ, Definition of Congruence. Segment LN is congruent to segment LN, Reflexive Property of Equality. Draw segment JL and segment KL, by Construction. Four arrows from the previous four statements are drawn to the statement triangle JNL is congruent to triangle KNL, Side Angle Side, SAS Postulate. An arrow from this statement is drawn to the statement segment JL is congruent to segment KL, Corresponding Parts of Congruent Triangles are Congruent CPCTC. An arrow from this statement is drawn to JL equals KL, Definition of Congruence. An arrow from this statement is drawn to Point L is equidistant from points J and K, Definition of Equidistant.
What is the error in this flowchart?
JL and KL are equal in length, according to the definition of a midpoint.
An arrow is missing between ∠LNK = 90° and ∠LNJ = 90° and ∠LNK ≅ ∠LNJ.
An arrow is missing between the given statement and ∠LNK ≅ ∠LNJ.
Triangles JNL and KNL are congruent by the Angle-Angle Side (AAS) Postulate.

- anonymous

i think its C

- egbeach

i think it is too but im not positive

- anonymous

humm alright well thanks though

Looking for something else?

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