What is the missing reason in the proof?
2 answers:
We know that two angles are congruent if their values are the same or in other words if they are equal. Now, in step #2 it is given that and in step #7 it has been proven that
. Thus, since both the angles,
and
have equal values or equal measures, both amounting to
. Therefore, by definition of congruent angles,
/.
Thus, the missing reason in the proof at step #8 is "definition of congruent angles".
You might be interested in
Dividing a number by the ratio 3:2 means dividing into 3+2 = 5 parts
Let (0, 0) be (x₁, y₁) and (3, 6) be (x₂, y₂)
Find one part of the share for each axes, we do
Then multiplying the one part back into 3: 2, we have
for the x - axis ⇒ (3×0.6) : (2×0.6) = 1.8: 1.2
for the y - axis ⇒ (3×1.2) : (2×1.2) = 3.6: 2.4
The coordinate that divides the segment into 3 parts and 2 parts is (1.8, 3.6)
Correct answer: A
Let (0, 0) be (x₁, y₁) and (3, 6) be (x₂, y₂)
Find one part of the share for each axes, we do
Then multiplying the one part back into 3: 2, we have
for the x - axis ⇒ (3×0.6) : (2×0.6) = 1.8: 1.2
for the y - axis ⇒ (3×1.2) : (2×1.2) = 3.6: 2.4
The coordinate that divides the segment into 3 parts and 2 parts is (1.8, 3.6)
Correct answer: A