SOLUTION: Could you please help write an INDIRECT PROOF for this problem? My child is currently learning Indirect proofs at school. Would greatly appreciate your help.
<a rel=nofollow HR
Algebra ->
Geometry-proofs
-> SOLUTION: Could you please help write an INDIRECT PROOF for this problem? My child is currently learning Indirect proofs at school. Would greatly appreciate your help.
<a rel=nofollow HR
Log On
Question 1186429: Could you please help write an INDIRECT PROOF for this problem? My child is currently learning Indirect proofs at school. Would greatly appreciate your help.
Found 2 solutions by MathLover1, greenestamps:Answer by MathLover1(20850) (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website!
given:
< is not congruent to <
prove:
is not congruent
guidelines for writing indirect proof:
1. identify the statement that you want to prove is true
2. begin by assuming the statement is false, assume its opposite is true
3. obtain statements that are logically follow from your assumption
4. if obtain contradiction, then the original statement must be true
statement......................................................reason
1. < is not congruent to <.............given
2......................................................given
3. is congruent .....................................indirect proof assumption
4. is midpoint of....................................definition of midpoint
5. is bisector of <...............................definition of bisector
6. < is congruent to <....................reflexive property
7. contradiction (3,6)...........................................the is
Statement 5 in the response from the other tutor is not valid....
1. BC is congruent to DC indirect proof assumption
2. AB is congruent to AD given
3. AC is congruent to AC
4. Triangles ACB and ACD are congruent SSS
5. Angles BAC and DAC are congruent corresponding parts of congruent triangles
Statement 5 contradicts the given information that angles BAC and DAC are not congruent, so the assumption that BC is congruent to DC is false.
Therefore, BC is not congruent to DC, and the indirect proof is complete.