It is given that ∠B ≅ ∠C. Assume AB and AC are not congruent. If AB > AC, then m∠C > m∠B by . If AC > AB, then m∠B > m∠C for the same reason. However, using the given statement and the definition of congruency, we know that m∠B = m∠C. Therefore, AB = AC and AB ≅ AC. What is the missing reason in the proof?

converse of the triangle parts relationship theorem
substitution
definition of congruency
converse of the isosceles triangle theorem

(01.02 mc) asap plzzzwhich of the following correctly simplifies the expression 3 to the power of 2 multiplied by 5 to the power of 0 whole over 4, the whole squared.? select one: a. 3 to the power of 2 multiplied by 1 whole over 4, the whole squared. = 3 to the power of 1 multiplied by 1 squared over 4 squared. = 1 over 6.b. 3 to the power of 2 multiplied by 0 whole over 4, the whole squared. = 3 to the power of 4 multiplied by 0 over 4 squared. = 0c. 3 to the power of 2 multiplied by 0 whole over 4, the whole squared. = 3 to the power of 1 multiplied by 0 over 4 squared. = 0d. 3 to the power of 2 multiplied by 1 whole over 4, the whole squared. = 3 to the power of 4 multiplied by 1 squared over 4 squared. = 81 over 16.