I rly need this guys come on :(

Michael and Derrick each completed a separate proof to show that corresponding angles AKG and ELK are congruent. Who completed the proof incorrectly? Explain.

answer:

Michael's Proof is incorrect

Step-by-step explanation:

In Michael's proof, he messed up on 2. This is because he set the wrong angles congruent to each other. He said that angle AKG is congruent to angle AKL, but if you were to look at the transversal, you will see that the angles he gave are linear pairs and not vertical angles, which is incorrect.

answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

problem:

f(x) = - 2/3x + 5; f(5/2)

substitute 5/2 in for x:

f(5/2) = -2/3(5/2) + 5

simplify the right side:

f(5/2) = -5/3 + 5

f(5/2) = 10/3

f(5/2) = 10/3

i hope this !

7

step-by-step explanation:

the answer would be 7