I’ll mark Which numerical equation could be used to describe the diagram? A)−2 + 6 = 4
B)4 + (−6) = −2
C)−2 + (−6) = −8
D)−6 + (−2) = −8

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?

When ∆rst is translated 4 units down, what are the apparent coordinates of t’? give 15 points

To prove that def ~ gfh by the sss similarity theorem using the information provided in the diagram, it would be enough additional information to know that