The anwser is the first one you put , -4 is below zero
Jake rode 3 because you multiply 5 by 3/5 and your product would be 3!
Answer:
Answer is False . right answer is 171
Step-by-step explanation:
the option with the isoceles triangles can NOT be just of that proof, because nowhere is it defined or proven that there is or are isoceles triangles involved. even though the picture looks like it, but that does not mean anything for the formal proof.
actually, this proof is the same (and is also valid) for non-isoceles triangles.