Join the QuestionCove community and study together with friends!
Sign Up
OpenStudy (anonymous):
OpenStudy (anonymous):
@Senka™ @samtab @esshotwired @msumner @Meganmarie @Darrius @DullJackel09 help meh please
OpenStudy (anonymous):
what you need
OpenStudy (anonymous):
open the attachment
OpenStudy (anonymous):
which
Still Need Help?
Join the QuestionCove community and study together with friends!
Sign Up
OpenStudy (anonymous):
eloo
OpenStudy (anonymous):
Which one
OpenStudy (anonymous):
lol wait
OpenStudy (anonymous):
kk
OpenStudy (anonymous):
Still Need Help?
Join the QuestionCove community and study together with friends!
Sign Up
OpenStudy (esshotwired):
It would be Alternate Interior Angles
OpenStudy (anonymous):
ok thanks :D
OpenStudy (anonymous):
aaa
OpenStudy (esshotwired):
do you want to know why?
OpenStudy (anonymous):
sure
Still Need Help?
Join the QuestionCove community and study together with friends!
Sign Up
OpenStudy (esshotwired):
sorry i had left. it is alternate interior angles because AB is parallel to CD. and if you look carefully at the angles and answer choices, you can tell the two angles are alternate interior angles.|dw:1385213199615:dw| this is an example of two alternate interior angles.
for this question: |dw:1385213288933:dw| now imagine AD and BC were gone and AC was increased past the two parallel lines: |dw:1385213444706:dw| now compare this to my first drawing of alternate interior angles. you can tell that the way to say that the angles are congruent is by alternate interior angles, but if AB was not parallel to CD then you cannot prove the angles congruent.
does that make anymore sense?