Question

A. Provide the missing statement and justification in the proof.
B. Using complete sentences, explain why the proof would not work without the missing step.

Answer 1

@jim_thompson5910 can you help

Answer 2

what does CPCTC stand for

Answer 3

corresponding part congruent to corresponding angles?

Answer 4

close

Answer 5

CPCTC = Corresponding Parts of Congruent Triangles are Congruent

Answer 6

ok

Answer 7

So look at statement 9. The reason is CPCTC

Answer 8

This means that we must have proven that the two triangles are congruent in a previous step above. Did that happen?

Answer 9

no, we need to figure out step number 8

Answer 10

I know, but we use step 9 to figure out step 8

Answer 11

Of course we use the other steps, but step 9 is probably the biggest hint

Answer 12

okay, gotcha

Answer 13

so tell me what you get for step 8

Answer 14

im probably wrong but would it have to do with the reflexive property?

Answer 15

no

Answer 16

you need the fact that the two triangles are congruent to use CPCTC

but it's missing so far in the steps

Answer 17

im sorry im confused

Answer 18

look through the steps, is there a step where they prove that the two triangles are congruent?

Answer 19

um no i dont think so

Answer 20

so we need that step to use CPCTC

Answer 21

so would it be PQR = SRT?

Answer 22

No, triangle PQR isn't possible because segment PR or RP doesn't exist (there's no line from point P to point R)

Answer 23

sp then SRQ and PQT?

Answer 24

*so

Answer 25

im dont mean to rush but i need to leave soon

Answer 26

more like SQR = TQP

the order of the points matters because changing the order changes which segments and angles get paired up with each other

Answer 27

oh ok i see it

Answer 28

but what would be the justification

Answer 29

look at the previous steps

Answer 30

they build up to what you need in step 8

Answer 31

in other words, you use those previous steps as justification to say that the two triangles are congruent

Answer 32

would it be a postulate like SSS SAS ASA?

Answer 33

yes, you then condense the needed steps in a simple acronym

Answer 34

i think its SSS postulate

Answer 35

actually maybe SAS

Answer 36

can't be SSS

you only have one pair of congruent sides (look at statement 1) and you do NOT have 2 more pairs of congruent sides

Answer 37

so ASA

Answer 38

that's better, you definitely have 2 angles and a side

Answer 39

ok so for my final answer im writing SQR = TQP ASA Postulate

The proof wouldnt work without this step because then you would not have been able to determine that PQ + RQ by CPCTC

Answer 40

that sound good?

Answer 41

i meant = not +

Answer 42

yes that works, make sure you say "triangle SQR = triangle TQP by the ASA Postulate" to make sure you don't confuse them with the angles SQR and TQP

Answer 43

awesome, thank you so much, you are a life saver man. Sorry if i rushed you

Answer 44

It's fine, you're in a hurry

Answer 45

thanks again!

Answer 46

np