Select the correct answer from each drop-down menu. Shape I is similar to shape II. The sequence that proves shape I is similar to shape II when applied to shape I is a reflection across the , followed by a translation units right and units down, and then a dilation by a scale factor of. plz help

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?

Determine the number of outcomes in the event. decide whether the event is a simple event or not. upper a computer is used to select randomly a number between 1 and 9 comma inclusive. event upper b is selecting a number greater than 4. event upper b has nothing outcome(s). is the event a simple event? (yes or no) because event upper b has (fewer than, exactly, more than) one outcome.

It says factor each expression 49x-28?