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?

The error in the argument is in assuming that the line from p to d passes through line ab - that is, that pd crosses below a. But actually pd passes above a. This means that the angle pad is not equal to x + pab, but rather angle pad = 360-(x+pab). The rest of the "proof" then falls apart.

Step-by-step explanation:

the largest number of the four options is 1.8 x 10-2

you have it in scientific notation.

1.80 x 10-6   = 0.00000180

1.80 x 10-4   = 0.000180 (bigger, or "less small", than the former one)

so

1.8 x 10-2       = 0.0180. as you see. the "less small", or the biggest one of them all.

as you have negative exponent, it means you are dividing 1.8 by 100 (i.e. moving the dot towards left, two times).

if you had positive exponent for the scientific notation, power of tenths, you would be multiplying times 100 (moving the dot towards right) as below:

1.8 x (10)2 = 180

so. if you have negative exponent in scientific notation, move the dot toward left. if it is positive, toward right as many times the exponent tells you.

answer: on kudzu, being female and being green are independent events.

step-by-step explanation: