Natalie studied the properties of a square and a rhombus and concluded that a square can be called a rhombus but a rhombus cannot be called a square. Which statement supports her conclusion?

Answer

The sides in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

The diagonals in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

The opposite sides in a square must be parallel unlike in a rhombus.

The diagonals in a square must be perpendicular unlike in a rhombus.

Question

Natalie studied the properties of a square and a rhombus and concluded that a square can be called a rhombus but a rhombus cannot be called a square. Which statement supports her conclusion?

Answer

The sides in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

The diagonals in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

The opposite sides in a square must be parallel unlike in a rhombus.

The diagonals in a square must be perpendicular unlike in a rhombus.

anonymous · Answer

The diagonals in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

anonymous · Answer

yes 2nd one

anonymous · Answer

2nd one is the answer

anonymous · Answer

But remember diagonals bisect each other in both rhombus and square

anonymous · Answer

The diagonals in a square must be congruent unlike in a rhombus.

anonymous · Answer

Thanks everyone, thats what i had but i has second thoughts

anonymous · Answer

I'm a little doubtful, why can't it be the 1st one?