Martin graphed a shape. he then applied the transformation (x, y)→ (2x,2y+3). is the new shape congruent to the original shape? why or why not? A. no, because the shape was dialected and reflected.
B. no, because the shape was dialected and translated
C. yes, because the shape was rotated and reflected
D. yes, because the shape was rotated and translated​

the smallest possible measurement of the width is 14 feet

step-by-step explanation:

let's assume length of parallelogram is 'l'

width of parallelogram is 'w'

the perimeter of a parallelogram must be no less than 40 feet

so, we get

we are given

length of parallelogram is 6 feet

so,

l=6

we can plug it

now, we can solve for w

subtract both sides by 12

divide both sides by 2

and we get

so,

the smallest possible measurement of the width is 14 feet

so firstly, we need to isolate the y variables to be able to solve these inequalities. firstly, add 0.5x on both sides of the first inequality and subtract 1.5x on both sides of the second inequality:

now since the slope is positive for the first inequality, this means that the line going upwards belongs to the first inequality, and the line going downwards belongs to the second inequality.

next, since y ≥ in the first inequality, this means that the shaded region will be above the first inequality's line, thus shading regions a and b.

next, since y ≤ in the second inequality, this means that the shaded region is going to be below this line, thus shading regions a and c.

since both lines shade region a, this means that region a is the solution.

step-by-step explanation:

mark brainliest!

false

step-by-step explanation:

false : it can not go to 9 the highest that part can go is 7

here is your proof