Diana and joby wrote the following proofs to prove that vertical angles are congruent. who is correct? . diana’s proof. statement justification . 1 + 2 = 180° definition of supplementary angles . 1 + 4 = 180° definition of supplementary angles . 1 + 2 = 1 + 4 transitive property of equality . . joby’s proof. statement justification . 2 = 4 vertical angles are congruent. 1 = 3 vertical angles are congruent. vertical angles are congruent. vertical angle theorem .

The correct answer is:

Diana is correct.

Explanation:

A diagram of the problem is attached. Since ∠1 and ∠2 form a straight line, they are supplementary angles; this means that ∠1 + ∠2 = 180°.

Using the same logic, ∠1 and ∠4 form a straight line, so ∠1 + ∠4 = 180°.

Using the transitive property (or substitution), ∠1 + ∠2 = ∠1 + ∠4.

The last step would be to subtract ∠1 from each side, leaving ∠2 = ∠4, which are vertical angles.

Joby's proof is incorrect because you cannot use a statement you are trying to prove in its own proof.

step-by-step explanation:

i think something is missing in your question because y-1=(x-12) would not pass through the point (-4,-3). because if you replace x by -4 your are supposed to find y=-3 which is not the case her. if you replace x by -4 you find =-15.

i assume the right equation is y-1=1/4*(x-12) because this one is passing through both your points (if you are interested to know how i found that out i can tell you).

in this equation if i replace x by -4 i find y=-3 and if i replace x by 12, i find y=1 so the line representing this equation is passing through those 2 points.

then the standard form of the equation is finding an expression of y in function of x

y-1=1/4*(x-12)

y=x/4-3+1

y=x/4-2

hope that .

do you confirm there was a mistake in the question?

they go with it happens or they mite give a chance?

step-by-step explanation: