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?

heudhduxhdnshenebdutbbt

step-by-step explanation:

hrhhdhdbbrurb ees

i think the answer is b.

step-by-step explanation:

not 100% sure though.

for the friend request.

when a figure, such as triangle (xyz) is reflected over the line y = x to create x'y'z' the x-coordinates and y-coordinates of the original image (pre-image) will be reversed for the image. (e.g., (x, y) > (y, x)) this means that the pre-image position of the x- and y-coordinates switch places which in turn provides a mirror like image of the original xyz.  

i notice that when i draw a line segment from x to x', that the points are parallel from each other -- they are exactly across from each other and do not intersect with any other points.  

yes, think i would see the same characteristic if you drew the line segment connecting y with the reflecting line and then y' with the reflecting line because of the essence of reflections. because it is a mirror image, each point was effected the same way which leads me to conclude that they same would apply to y and y'.