Jarvis left out a statement from the proof shown.which statement is best explained by the corresponding angles postulate
2 answers:
The postulate of the corresponding angles establishes that when a transversal line cuts two parallel lines, the corresponding angles are congruent. These angles are on the same side of the parallel lines and on the same side of the transversal line.
Then, if we based on this definition and analize the figure attached, we can notice that the angles ∠1 and ∠3 are corresponding angles, so they are congruent. In this case the angle ∠1 is internal and the angle ∠3 is external.
The answer is: ∠1 and ∠3 are congruent (See the image attached).
Then, if we based on this definition and analize the figure attached, we can notice that the angles ∠1 and ∠3 are corresponding angles, so they are congruent. In this case the angle ∠1 is internal and the angle ∠3 is external.
The answer is: ∠1 and ∠3 are congruent (See the image attached).
You might be interested in
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
fjhjthfdvhfjrhgehdhrjfhdrhjthr
Answer:
Approximately .
Step-by-step explanation:
Remark: this approach make use of the fact that in the original solution, the concentration of and
are equal.
Since is a salt soluble in water. Once in water, it would readily ionize to give
and
ions.
Assume that the and
ions in this solution did not disintegrate at all. The solution would contain:
of
, and
of
from
of
.
Accordingly, the concentration of and
would be:
.
.
In other words, in this buffer solution, the initial concentration of the weak acid is the same as that of its conjugate base,
.
Hence, once in equilibrium, the of this buffer solution would be the same as the
of
.
Calculate the of
from its
:
.