i need some help

7 months ago@Vocaloid

7 months agohm, not quite, the original length of QR is 5 and the scale factor is 1.5 right so the new length Q'R' is just 5 * 1.5

7 months agofirst you must calculate the area of the triangle that's on the graph area = (1/2)bh

7 months agoso 108?

7 months ago108? judging by the size of the triangle it's much smaller than that the base of the triangle is KM, how long is KM?

7 months ago|dw:1529801081890:dw|

7 months ago6, or -6

7 months ago|dw:1529801087031:dw|

7 months agoarea is always positive, so 6 not -6 now, that's the area of the original triangle, but we want the dilated one for area, we apply the scale factor twice so 6 * 1/4 * 1/4 --> simplify to get your sol'n

7 months ago0.06

7 months agoso it's just 6?

7 months agoot like, 600?

7 months agothe scale factor is 1/4 the original area is 6 6 * (1/4) * (1/4) = ?

7 months ago0.375

7 months agogood (idk whether they want decimals or fractions, since they give you 1/4 they may want 3/8 as the solution instead of 0.375)

7 months agogood

7 months agohm not quite check your calculations again triangle proportionality theorem 3/(x-1) = 5/(x+1) solve for x

7 months agomight be going soon but you just need to cross multiply 3(x+1) = 5(x-1) distribute the 3 and the 5 then solve for x

7 months ago4

7 months agogood so x = 4 = your sol'n

7 months agonotice how we are only given two angles so it must be angle-angle

7 months agogoing to get some dinner

7 months agook

7 months ago@Vocaloid back yet?

7 months agoyes

7 months agohm not quite symmetric states that if b = a then a = b notice how we have UXA ~ WXY WXY ~ VXZ therefore UXA ~ VXZ this is another form of the transitive property

7 months agoother way around since x + 4 and 8 are the sides of the small triangle and 18 and 10 are the sides of the big triangle it has to be (x+4)/18 = 8/10 not 10/8

7 months agohm if we rotate the triangle so that they're both in the same orientation we can see we have the proportion 12/10 = 15/12.5 right? that means the two sides given are similar

7 months agoso we have two sides the angle next to the two sides this is the SSA similarity theorem (unlike SSA congruence theorem which doesn't exist, SSA similarity is real)

7 months agowait

7 months agohuh, weird, SSA isn't one of the choices let's go with your choice then

7 months agogood

7 months agocareful is 4/5 equal to 9/10?

7 months agoso C?

7 months agogood

7 months agogood

7 months agohuh not sure how to solve this but A is the only one that seems physically possible

7 months agogood

7 months agoalmost MLN and OLN are not corresponding (try rotating the two halves so the congruent sides are lined up) it ends up being ONL and MLN (first choice) the ones being congruent

7 months agosides across from bigger angles are bigger so FG has to be less than KM

7 months ago*less than ML

7 months agoso it needs to be a less than sign (without the equal part)

7 months agohm, not quite, it only tells you which angles are bigger than others, so false

7 months ago|dw:1529810412380:dw|

7 months ago|dw:1529810417532:dw| not quite it has to be the angles in between the two congruent sides so the two angles marked in yellow

7 months agoso...wait...

7 months agoUVT and WVT?

7 months ago*WTV not WVT (pay attention to the letter order) so D

7 months agonot quite for an indirect proof, take the "prove" statement and assume the opposite

7 months agoso B?

7 months agogood

7 months agohm. not quite. the left angle is smaller than the right angle so the left segment is smaller than the right segment so the right segment needs to be longer than 27 not shorter

7 months agoso 29?

7 months agoyup good

7 months agohm not quite notice how the side across from S is larger than the side across from B so S is bigger than B

7 months ago@Vocaloid

7 months agonotice how it's in the form a = b then b = a which property of equality is this?

7 months agoreflexive?

7 months ago|dw:1529815379604:dw| symmetric not reflexive reflexive would be a = a

7 months agocan I see what the paragraph proof is?

7 months agoalright, B is correct then

7 months agogood but make sure to spell it right *transitive

7 months agoEF = FG FG = GH therefore EF = GH this is transitive not symmetric

7 months ago<1 is congruent to <2 <2 is congruent to <3 <1 is congruent to <3 using the same logic as before, transitive

7 months ago|dw:1529817250658:dw|

7 months agonothing is being added together so segment addition isn't applicable notice how something is stated to be equal to itself (reflexive)

7 months agoI think we did this one already we said it was a case of congruent complements

7 months agooh, right, i forgot..

7 months agosame logic as before, if something is equal to itself it's reflexive not addition

7 months agoi dont know if we've done this question before, possibly, i;m just tired atm

7 months agogood

7 months agogood

7 months agothis one i feel we did before

7 months agooh I think I finally figured out this one since they went from 90 + BAD = 180, they subtracted 90 from both sides to get BAD = 90 so subtraction not symmetric

7 months agohm it says "definition of" so they're probably looking for the name of a geometric figure not a postulate so "congruent segments" is probably what they're looking for

7 months agonot segment addition. nothing is being added up. AB = EF EF = CD AB = CD via transitive

7 months agohm, not quite it's only talking about <QRS which is only one angle so it cannot be a pair looking at QRS is it a right angle or a straight angle?

7 months agostraight

7 months agogood so A is the better option

7 months agoit's about 2 in the morning here so i'd better get to bed will be on tomorrow if no other plans come up

7 months ago