carlos says that the xyz is not congruent to pqr because there is no ssa theorem or postulate.
in two or more complete sentences, explain why or why not carlos is correct. justify your answer using triangle congruency postulates, theorems, and definitions.

Step-by-step explanation:

Carlos is correct. Since the angles P and X are not included between PQ and RQ and XY and YZ, the SAS postulate cannot be used, since it states that the angle must be included between the sides. Unlike with ASA, where there is the AAS theorem for non-included sides, there is not SSA theorem for non-included angles, so the triangles cannot be proven to be congruent.

(0,-3) see attached graph

step-by-step explanation:

a. to solve the system, graph the two equations.

x = y+3 becomes y=x-3 has m=1/1 and b=-3. start at (0,-3) on the y-axis and plot a point. then move up 1 unit and 1 unit to the right. plot a point and connect.

y=-4x+3 has m =-4/1 and b=-3. start at (0,-3) on the y-axis and plot a point. then move down four units and to the right 1 unit. plot a point and connect.

the solution is the point (x,y) where the two lines intersect. by the graph below it is (0,-3).

b. to solve by substitution, substitute y = -4x-3 into x= y+3

x= (-4x-3) +3

x=-4x

5x=0

x=0

now substitute x = 0 back in to find y.

y= -4(0)-3

y=0-3

y=-3

solution is (0,-3)

c. use elimination by adding the equations together.

x-y=3

4x+y=-3

5x=0

x=0

then substitute into one equation to find y.

y=-4(0)-3

y=-3