No one is answering please answer and explain I’ll mark brainliest

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?

An alternative to car buying is to make monthly payments for a period of time, and then return the vehicle to the dealer, or purchase it. this is called

*let m∠cob = 50°30’, m∠aob = 70° and m∠aoc = 20°30’. could point c be in the interior of ∠aob? why? a. point c could be the interior of aob but it is not the only case b. point c is the interior of aob c. point c is not the interior of aob d. the given is not possible for the plane geometry answer