Full working out ^^ for the first question , ty

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

Write the sentence as an equation. 6 fewer than the quantity 140 times j equals 104

Estimate the area under the curve f(x) = 16 - x^2 from x = 0 to x = 3 by using three inscribed (under the curve) rectangles. answer to the nearest integer.