I believe the correct answer would be B. 88 Degrees, because 92 + 88 = 180. Hope this helped!
-TTL
We know that
in the first triangle
the ratio of the legs are
4.5/1.5-----> 3
then
case <span>A) 6 m and 2 m ------> ratio=6/3----> 3
so
</span><span>the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
</span>case B) 8 m and 5 m ------> ratio=8/5---->1.6
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case C) 7 m and 3.5 mm ------> ratio=7/3.5---->2
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case D) 10 m and 2.5 m ------> ratio=10/2.5---->4
so
the legs of a second triangle are not proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
case E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m ------> ratio=11.25/3.75---->3
so
the legs of a second triangle are proportional to the lengths of the legs of the first triangle
the answer is
A) 6 m and 2 m
E) 11.25 m and 3.75 m
Answer: 2.
Step-by-step explanation: Both lines intersect each other 2 times.
Formula: l•w•h
Answer: 330 yd
Hope that helps :)
Answer:
$900
Step-by-step explanation:
Use the formula for simple interest: i = p r t, where i is the interest earned, p is the principal amount, r is the interest rate as a decimal fraction, and t is the time in years.
Here, i = $27 = p(0.015)(2), or
$27 = 0.03p
Dividing both sides by 0.03, we get:
p = $27 / 0.03 = $900
The principal, in this situation, was $900.
