Answer:
No, it's 9
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
96
Step-by-step explanation:
8z when 12=z
substitute the z for 112 when doing that multiply 8(12)=96
We know that
in the first triangle
the ratio of the legs are
4.5/1.5-----> 3
then
case <span>A) 6 m and 2 m ------> ratio=6/3----> 3
so
</span><span>the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
</span>case B) 8 m and 5 m ------> ratio=8/5---->1.6
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case C) 7 m and 3.5 mm ------> ratio=7/3.5---->2
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case D) 10 m and 2.5 m ------> ratio=10/2.5---->4
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m ------> ratio=11.25/3.75---->3
so
the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
the answer is
A) 6 m and 2 m
E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m
Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

Cancel the negative signs on both sides.

Evaluate.

Divide 108 and 72 by twelve and you get 9 and 6 which all you have to do it multiply together