Interesting question
Usually when you look at something like that construction, you think that AB has been bisected by PQ and that the two segments are perpendicular. They are perpendicular but nowhere is that stated. So the answer is C because all the other answers are wrong.

PQ is congruent AB is not correct. As long as the arcs are equal and meet above and below AB there is no proof of congruency. In your mind widen the compass legs so that they are wider than AB and redraw the arcs. You get a larger PQ, but it has all the original properties of PQ except size.

PQ is not congruent to AQ. How would you prove conguency? You'd have to put both lines into triangles that can be proved congruent. It can't be done.

The two lines are not parallel. They are perpendicular. That can be proven. They meet at right angles to each other (also provable).

8 0

3 years ago

What is -18+6+3r+13r=

kvasek [131]

If this is just an expression, then all you have to do is combine like terms, or groups of numbers and variables that have the same variable.

When simplified, you get the equation

-12+ 16r or

-18+6+3r+13r=16r-12

7 0

3 years ago

A department store sells a pair of shoes with an 87% markup. If the store bought the pair of shoes for $55.25, what is the selli

kolbaska11 [484]

Markup means they sell it for that percentage more than they bought it for. First let's calculate how much they will mark it up for:

$\sf 55.25\cdot 87\%$

Convert 87% into a decimal(87/100):

$\sf 55.25\cdot 0.87$

Multiply:

$\sf\approx 48$

This is how much they'll mark it up, now let's add it to how much they bought it for to find out the selling price:

$\sf 48+55.25\approx\boxed{\sf \$ 103}$

5 0

3 years ago