proofs are no fun :( Attachment.

Question

anonymous · Answer

attachment

anonymous · Answer

Yes, we did. But we, again, only went over the simple Triangle proofs, and not the difficult ones enough to understand these types.

anonymous · Answer

Oh, I understood that one

anonymous · Answer

http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/4f3a221de4b0fc0c1a0e7db3

directrix · Answer

I don't know what has been done or not done.

anonymous · Answer

What I got:
1. Segment MQ is congruent to NT (given)
2. MQ is parallel to NT (given)
3. angle TMQ is congruent to angle NTM (Alt. int. <'s)
4. Segment MT is congruent to MT (Reflexive)
5. Triangle MNT is congruent to Triangle TQM (SAS)
6. Segment MN is congruent to TQ (CPCTC)

anonymous · Answer

I will type "Not done" for the ones I don't get.

directrix · Answer

I agree with your work. I would write for reason 3: If two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, then alternate interior angles formed are congruent.  But, that's me. I'm wondering what you use as a reason when you have two alternate interior angles congruent and want to prove the lines that form them parallel. :)