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).
Answer:
- 16 acres of barley only (no acres of wheat)
Step-by-step explanation:
A graph shows cost of planting puts an upper limit on planted area. The lower limit is provided by the requirement to plant at least 15 acres. The vertices of the feasible solution region are ...
(wheat acres, barley acres) = {(0, 15), (0, 16), (3, 12)}
The profit associated with these scenarios will be ...
for (0, 16): 16·350 = 5600
for (3, 12): 3·450 +12·350 = 1350 +4200 = 5550
To maximize profit, the farmer should plant 16 acres of barley.
Answer:
KEYS is a square
Showing as plotted and connected points
See the attached
1 kilometer = 10000 meters
1 kilometer = 100000 centimeters
I can so more and explain more is you want Hope it helps
<span />
What type of model are you talking about?
