Answer:
10
Step-by-step explanation:
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:
No
Step-by-step explanation:
It is not a prime number because it is divisible by 1, 3, 11 and itself, 33.
If it were just 33 and 1, it would be prime, but it has those extra factors
