Easy 82 points me as soon as possible!

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?

What is the effect on the graph of the parent function f(x) = x when f(x) is replaced with 3f(x)? a) shifts the line 3 units up b) shifts the line 3 units down c) increases the slope of the line by a factor of 3 d) decreases the slope of the line by a factor of 3

Which function represents the sequence? f(n)=n+3 f(n)=7n−4 f(n)=3n+7 f(n)=n+7