Answer:
y 》 2
y > -x + 3
Step-by-step explanation:
Equation of the bold line:
m = (-3/3) = -1
y = -x + 3
Shaded region is below y=2 (dotted)
So, it's defined by y < 2
Also, it's below the bold line
y 《 - x + 3
Everything outside these is not shaded:
y 》2
and y > -x + 3
You cannot rely on the drawing alone to prove or disprove congruences. Instead, pull out the info about the sides and angles being congruent so we can make our decision.
The diagram shows that:
- Side AB = Side XY (sides with one tick mark)
- Side BC = Side YZ (sides with double tickmarks)
- Angle C = Angle Z (similar angle markers)
We have two pairs of congruent sides, and we also have a pair of congruent angles. We can't use SAS because the angles are not between the congruent sides. Instead we have SSA which is not a valid congruence theorem (recall that ambiguity is possible for SSA). The triangles may be congruent, or they may not be, we would need more information.
---------------
So to answer the question if they are congruent, I would say "not enough info". If you must go with a yes/no answer, then I would say "no, they are not congruent" simply because we cannot say they are congruent. Again we would need more information.
Answer:
49.4 miles.
Step-by-step explanation:
3.8 × 13 = 49.4 (miles)
The number is 112
1. Three digits
2. Less than 140
3. 7 is a factor
4. Even
5. 1+1+2 = 4
