it is relevant to 37.5 percent
Let's solve your equation step-by-step.<span><span><span>−w</span>+<span>4<span>(<span>w+3</span>)</span></span></span>=<span>−12</span></span>Step 1: Simplify both sides of the equation.<span><span><span>−w</span>+<span>4<span>(<span>w+3</span>)</span></span></span>=<span>−12</span></span><span>Simplify: (Show steps)</span><span><span><span>3w</span>+12</span>=<span>−12</span></span>Step 2: Subtract 12 from both sides.<span><span><span><span>3w</span>+12</span>−12</span>=<span><span>−12</span>−12</span></span><span><span>3w</span>=<span>−24</span></span>Step 3: Divide both sides by 3.<span><span><span>3w</span>3</span>=<span><span>−24</span>3</span></span><span>w=<span>−8</span></span>Answer:<span>w=<span>−<span>8</span></span></span>
54 because the equation is 41+m and m is 13 and 41+13=54.
Carlos is correct
Since we don't know the length of sides PR and XZ, the triangles can't be congruent by the SSS theorem or the SAS theorem, and since we don't know the measure of angles Y and Q, the triangles can't be congruent by the ASA theorem, the SAS theorem or the AAS theorem. Therefore, Carlos is correct.
Carlos is correct. Since the angles P and X are not included between PQ and RQ and XY and YZ, the SAS postulate cannot be used, since it states that the angle must be included between the sides. Unlike with ASA, where there is the AAS theorem for non-included sides, there is not SSA theorem for non-included angles, so the triangles cannot be proven to be congruent.
