Diana and joby wrote the following proofs to prove that vertical angles are congruent. who is correct? . diana’s proof. statement justification . 1 + 2 = 180° definition of supplementary angles . 1 + 4 = 180° definition of supplementary angles . 1 + 2 = 1 + 4 transitive property of equality . . joby’s proof. statement justification . 2 = 4 vertical angles are congruent. 1 = 3 vertical angles are congruent. vertical angles are congruent. vertical angle theorem .

The correct answer is:

Diana is correct.

Explanation:

A diagram of the problem is attached. Since ∠1 and ∠2 form a straight line, they are supplementary angles; this means that ∠1 + ∠2 = 180°.

Using the same logic, ∠1 and ∠4 form a straight line, so ∠1 + ∠4 = 180°.

Using the transitive property (or substitution), ∠1 + ∠2 = ∠1 + ∠4.

The last step would be to subtract ∠1 from each side, leaving ∠2 = ∠4, which are vertical angles.

Joby's proof is incorrect because you cannot use a statement you are trying to prove in its own proof.

i think it's either c or d

step-by-step explanation: the entire question is extremely odd. 04 obviously refers to the interest rate. honestly i will say the answer is c. because the (2 x 12) part would mean it's compounded semiannually. i'll say choose c.

a. turk and mcalister

b. howard, mission, and market

c. yes. since streets end some do not cross yet are not parallel to others. example: mcalister and 5th

step-by-step explanation:

parallel lines are lines which do not intersect ever and look a lot like railroad tracks. turk, mcalister and golden gate are examples of these.

intersect are streets which cross each other and a car on one can reach the other. howard, mission, and market intersect with 6th.

skew lines are lines which neither intersect nor are parallel. these lines exist here because some streets end and never intersect another like mcalister and 5th.