You know that it's a bot when it says "explanation in file".
They forgot to put a question, there's nothing to answer...
Let's call the width: w
the lenght is then 3w+4 ("4 more than 3 times the width")
and the parameter would be 2(w+3w+4), that is 2*(4w+4), that is 8w+8.
this is also equal to 18.4:
8w+8=18.4
8w=10.4
w=1.3
this is the width, and the lenght is:
4+3*1,3=4+3.9=7.9
and the area is their product:
1.3*7.9=10.27
Step-by-step explanation:
Given
The function is 
for
, we will check the values of
and 
Take 3 and 4

Similarly,

Thus, 
Also,
is 1 i.e. a constant value. So, the function is increasing linearly for the given interval.
Nothing ;) Bc i don’t know hahahaha banana
Answer:
Becky, because her justification for the second statement should be "definition of supplementary angles" rather than "angle addition postulate."
Step-by-step explanation:
Becky completed the proof incorrectly because her justification for the second statement is not totally correct.
Angle addition postulate does not really apply here, as the sum of 2 angles may not give you exactly 180°.
However, the second statement, m<AKG + m<GKB = 180° and m<GKB + m<HKB = 180°, can be justified by the "Definition of Supplementary Angles".
The sum of supplementary angles = 180°.
Therefore, Becky completed the proof incorrectly.