Gideon has prepared the following two-column proof below. He is given that ∠OLN ≅ ∠LNO and he is trying to prove that ΔOLE ≅ ΔON
E.
Triangle OLN, where angle OLN is congruent to angle LNO
Step Statement Reason
1 ∠OLN ≅ ∠LNO Given
2 Draw OE as a perpendicular bisector to LN by Construction
3 m∠LEO = 90° Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
4 m∠NEO = 90° Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
5 LE ≅ EN Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
6 OL ≅ ON CPCTC
7 ∠LEO ≅ ∠NEO Substitution Property of Equality
8 ΔOLE ≅ ΔONE Angle-Side-Angle (ASA) Postulate
Gideon made two errors in the proof. Identify and correct the errors.
Triangle OLN, where angle OLN is congruent to angle LNO
Step Statement Reason
1 ∠OLN ≅ ∠LNO Given
2 Draw OE as a perpendicular bisector to LN by Construction
3 m∠LEO = 90° Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
4 m∠NEO = 90° Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
5 LE ≅ EN Definition of a Perpendicular Bisector
6 OL ≅ ON CPCTC
7 ∠LEO ≅ ∠NEO Substitution Property of Equality
8 ΔOLE ≅ ΔONE Angle-Side-Angle (ASA) Postulate
Gideon made two errors in the proof. Identify and correct the errors.
1 answer:
You might be interested in
Answer:
x=0.5355 or x=-6.5355
First step is to: Isolate the constant term by adding 7 to both sides
Step-by-step explanation:
We want to solve this equation:
On observation, the trinomial is not factorizable so we use the Completing the square method.
Step 1: Isolate the constant term by adding 7 to both sides
Step 2: Divide the equation all through by the coefficient of which is 2.
Step 3: Divide the coefficient of x by 2, square it and add it to both sides.
Coefficient of x=6
Divided by 2=3
Square of 3=
Therefore, we have:
Step 4: Write the Left Hand side in the form
Step 5: Take the square root of both sides and solve for x
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Both expressions are examples of the <em>distributive property</em>, which basically says "if I have <em>this </em>many groups of some size and <em>that</em> many groups of the same size, I've got <em>this </em>+ <em>that</em> groups of that size altogether."
To give an example, if I've got <em>3 groups of 5 </em>and <em>2 groups of 5</em>, I've got 3 + 2 = <em>5 groups of 5 </em>in total. I've attached a visual from Math with Bad Drawings to illustrate this idea.
Mathematically, we'd capture that last example with the equation
. We can also read that in reverse: 3 + 2 groups of 5 is the same as adding together 3 groups of 5 and 2 groups of 5; both directions get us 8 groups of 5. We can use this fact to rewrite the first expression like this:
.
This idea extends to subtraction too: If we have 3 groups of 4 and we take away 1 group of 4, we'd expect to be left with 3 - 1 = 2 groups of 4, or in symbols: . When we start with two numbers like 15 and 10, our first question should be if we can split them up into groups of the same size. Obviously, you could make 15 groups of 1 and 10 groups of 1, but 15 is also the same as <em>3 groups of 5</em> and 10 is the same as <em>2 groups of 5</em>. Using the distributive property, we could write this as
, so we can say that
.
