Question

The Vertical Angles Theorem says that if two angles are vertical, then they are congruent.

What is the converse of this statement?

If two angles are congruent, then they are vertical.
If two angles are not congruent, then they are not vertical.
If two angles are not vertical, then they are not congruent.
If two vertical angles are congruent, then they are formed by two intersecting lines.

Answer 1

@dm91

Answer 2

rawr

Answer 3

@lildanny2025

Answer 4

yay

Answer 5

lol

Answer 6

i was tagged

Answer 7

B?

Answer 8

i breathe fire ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)

Answer 9

That would be inverse, which is negating to say the truth.

In a converse you just switch the two main ideas.

Answer 10

Also, please stay on topic. :x

Answer 11

b

Answer 12

ok ლ(ಠ_ಠლ) :(

Answer 13

I remember when I was a pro at this during summer school. Now I forget it all, lol xD

Answer 14

oh so then D

Answer 15

im going to my favorite subject

Answer 16

No, B is an inverse. :/

I legit just said that lol

Answer 17

ik i said D not B

Answer 18

Not quite! D says INTERSECTING and not vertical.

It is converse, though!

Answer 19

c

Answer 20

A?

Answer 21

Let me put an example of a converse

If it meows, it is a cat.

The converse would be:

If it is a cat, it meows.

Answer 22

seems like Chibiterasu has this one maybe the next one iloveyou;*

Answer 23

Yeah it's A. Remember, it's just switched in a converse

Answer 24

thnx guys :)

Answer 25

Chiba raking in them medals c;

Answer 26

This is an inverse:

If it does not meow, it is not a cat.

Answer 27

np

Answer 28

IM BATHING IN GOLD

Answer 29

ok

Answer 30

who likes call of duty

Answer 31

If it does meow, it is a cat

if it does not meow, it is not a cat

If it is a cat, it does meow

If it is now a cat, it does not meow

Something like that?

Answer 32

now = not

Answer 33

Yeah

Answer 34

They all have the same meaning when you think about it

Answer 35

yeah