I’m not sure, but I think you divide 360 by each one of those angles.
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:
24×25-24×18+10
Step-by-step explanation:
it's gonna be 150 simplified
If we divide the area we have to cover by the area of a piece, we will get the number of pieces needed:
