Based on the SAS congruence criterion, the statement that best describes Angie's statement is:
Two triangles having two pairs of congruent sides and a pair of congruent angles do not necessarily meet the SAS congruence criterion, therefore Angie is incorrect.
<h3 /><h3>What is congruency?</h3>
The Side-Angle-Side Congruence Theorem (SAS) defines two triangles to be congruent to each other if the included angle and two sides of one is congruent to the included angle and corresponding two sides of the other triangle.
An included angle is found between two sides that are under consideration.
See image attached below that demonstrates two triangles that are congruent by the SAS Congruence Theorem.
Thus, two triangles having two pairs of corresponding sides and one pair of corresponding angles that are congruent to each other is not enough justification for proving that the two triangles are congruent based on the SAS Congruence Theorem.
The one pair of corresponding angles that are congruent MUST be "INCLUDED ANGLES".
Therefore, based on the SAS congruence criterion, the statement that best describes Angie's statement is:
Two triangles having two pairs of congruent sides and a pair of congruent angles do not necessarily meet the SAS congruence criterion, therefore Angie is incorrect.
Learn more about congruency at
brainly.com/question/14418374
#SPJ1
Answer:
what is your questions mate I mm didn't understand ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Step-by-step explanation:
,When a percent amount is multiplied to another number, the operation produces a value that equals the given percent of the original number. ... Multiplying a number by 100 percent is a just variation of the multiplicative identity and will result in the value being unchanged.
Answer:
The answer is B and Isosceles Triangle.
Step-by-step explanation:
I can help you round 206834 and 194268 to its nearest thousands place. 207000 would be the estimate for the first number and 194000 would be the estimate for the second number.
