Answer:
She did not consider the multiplicative inverse property of a real number
Step-by-step explanation:
Jacinta in her conclusion did not consider the Multiplicative Inverse property of real numbers.
Let x be an irrational number.
So, 
If x is an irrational number, then its reverse is also an irrational number. So by the Multiplicative Inverse property their product is 1 and 1 is a rational number. Thus, Jacinta was incorrect.
Option B i.e. Non-Euclidean
Answer:
84
Step-by-step explanation:
women=x
daughter=y.
x=2y.
x-21=3(y-21).
2y-21=3y-63.
42=y.
x=84.
Hope this helps plz hit the crown :D
300+20+5+.800+09 I hope that is what your looking for good luck :)