Jason claims that the value of s - r must be greater than the value of s - q. His reasoning is that r is closer to zero than q . Explain why Jason claim and reasoning are incorrect.
.Provide a correct claim and reasoning, explaining how the distance of r and q from zero support your reasoning

step-by-step explanation:

once you graph it hit 2nd (the blue button) and graph

that takes you to a table of coordinates

on the left is x coordinates and on the right is y coordinates and an empty box

(you may have to scroll up/down in order to get ( x, 0)

∠1≅∠2 by the alternate exterior angles theorem.

step-by-step explanation:

given, a ∥ b and ∠1 ≅ ∠3 .we have to prove that e ∥ f

we know that ∠1≅∠3 and that a || b because they are given. we see that by the alternate exterior angles theorem. therefore, ∠2≅∠3 by the transitive property. so, we can conclude that e || f by the converse alternate exterior angles theorem.

we have to fill the missing statement.

transitivity property states that if a = b and b = c, then a = c.

now, given ∠1≅∠3 and by transitivity property ∠2≅∠3 .

hence, to apply transitivity property one angle must be common which is not in result after applying this property which is ∠1.

the only options in which ∠1 is present are ∠1 and ∠2, ∠1 and ∠4

∠1 and ∠4 is not possible ∵ after applying transitivity we didn't get ∠4.

hence, the missing statement is ∠1≅∠2.

so, ∠1≅∠2 by the alternate exterior angles theorem.

step-by-step explanation: