Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 11 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Proof for parallelogram (fill in the blanks) Given PQRS is a parallelogram prove PR and QS bisect each other at T

OpenStudy (anonymous):

1) PQRS is a parallelogram 1) 2)PQ is parallel to RS 2)definition for parallelogram 3)m<1=m<3 m<2=m<4 3) 4)PQ=RS 4)opposite sides of a parallelogram are congruent 5)triangle PQT= triangle RST 5) 6)PT-RT 6) 7) 7)definiton of a bisector

OpenStudy (mertsj):

Do you know the first answer?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

no

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

The second line says "Given PQRS is a parallelogram" so reason 1) is simply "given"

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

as for 3), I would need to see a pic of it to know where angles 1, 2, 3, 4 are

OpenStudy (anonymous):

|dw:1393906474674:dw|

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

thanks

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

any ideas why angle 1 = angle 3? and why angle 2 = angle 4? hint: look at how PQ is parallel to ST

OpenStudy (anonymous):

because opposite angles are congruent in a parallelogram

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

not quite

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

what kind of angles are 1 and 3?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yeah i cant find that anywhere in my notes

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

If we have 2 parallel lines |dw:1393908177175:dw|

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

then we cut them with a transversal |dw:1393908193350:dw|

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

then the alternate interior angles |dw:1393908208113:dw| will be congruent

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

So that's why m<1=m<3 and m<2=m<4

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok so it would just be 3) alternate interior angles

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

correct

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what about for 5 both triangles are congruent which means

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

how do we know they are congruent?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

because in the given column is says triangle PQT= triangle RST

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

but what is the reason?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

how do we justify that?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

the triangles have 3 sets of congruent angles and sides

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

look back at the proof, you'll see that not all 3 sides are used to prove the two triangles are congruent

OpenStudy (anonymous):

then just the angles? because we know what the angles are since they are congruent to each other

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

we have 2 angles, and a side between them, so instead of SSS we use ASA

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

m<1 = m<3 is one pair of angles m<2 = m<4 is the other pair PQ=RS is the set of sides sandwiched between the angles

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so 5) would be just ASA

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

yep ASA property of congruence

OpenStudy (anonymous):

and would 6) be SSS because PT and RT are sides as well as QT and ST

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

no, if you know two triangles are congruent, what can you say about the corresponding pieces?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

it's not SSS

OpenStudy (anonymous):

what about CPCTC

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

yep it's CPCTC

OpenStudy (anonymous):

and would 7) be PR and QS bisect each other at T

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

the last statement is ALWAYS the thing you want to prove, so you are correct

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!