Courtney said she can see 48 and 240 in the model. explain what courtney means

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 data in the table represent the height of an object over time. which model best represents the data? height of an object time (seconds) height (feet) 05 1 50 2 70 3 48 quadratic, because the height of the object increases or decreases with a multiplicative rate of change quadratic, because the height increases and then decreases exponential, because the height of the object increases or decreases with a multiplicative rate of change exponential, because the height increases and then decreases

Polygon abcde is reflected to produce polygon a′b′c′d′e′. what is the equation for the line of reflection?