Someone help me with this question please.

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?

Ineed no it anyone can see this

A. use the formula for continuous compounding with the original example: $1000 invested at 2% for 1 year. record the amount to 5 decimal places. use a calculator. b. compare it to the result using the original compound interest formula with n = 365 calculated to 5 decimal places. which has a larger value? explain.