1. no because 2x+10 is not equal to 2x+7
2. no. you cant add una like terms so 4x+4 doesn’t equal 8x
3. yes. the terms still retain their same value although they are not in the same order
4. yes. when u distribute the -3, you get -3x-6 which is of course equal to -3x-6
Answer:
22w - 18
Step-by-step explanation:
To find the perimeter we have to add up all the sides
10w-10+w+1+10w-10+w+1
combine light terms
22w - 18 would be our answer
Answer:
CODE: 1977.98
Step-by-step explanation:
A.
(To get the closest answer, round the circumference to the nearest ten thousandth.)
C = 2(3.14)r Circumference formula: C = 2πr
C = 2(3.14)(3)
C = 18.84
B.
A = (3.14)r²
A = (3.14)(3)²
A = (3.14)(9)
A ≈ 28.26
C. (It's asking for the circumference.)
C = 2(3.14)r
C = 2(3.14)(58)
C ≈ 364.24
D. (It's a linear pair, which is 180 degrees.)
4x + 2x = 180
6x = 180
x = 30
m∠ABD = 4x
m∠ABD = 4(30)
m∠ABD = 120°
E. (∠GHI & ∠JHK are vertical angles, so they are congruent.)
x + 7 = 3x - 21
28 = 2x
14 = x
F. (x = 14)
m∠JHK = 3x - 21
m∠JHK = 3(14) - 21
m∠JHK = 42 - 21
m∠JHK = 21°
G. (Supplementary - two angles that add up to 180 degrees.)
180 - 84
= 96°
CODE: E(C - D) - F(G - B) - A
CODE: 14(364.24 - 120) - 21(96 - 28.26) - 18.84
CODE: 14(244.24) - 21(67.74) - 18.84
CODE: 3419.36 - 1422.54 - 18.84
CODE: 1977.98
Answer:
The statement is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
To begin an indirect proof, you assume the converse of what you intend to prove is true. This is false.
Rather the correct answer is that to begin an indirect proof, you assume the inverse of what you intend to prove is true.
The converse can be either true or false, depending on what the original statement is, so assuming the converse is pointless.
Plug x=3 into the equation:
5(3)+2
And simplify:
15+2
17
