What are the missing reasons in the two-column proof?

Reasons:

1. Because, MO cuts Angle PMN in two equal parts.

2.As ∠PMN is cut in to equal parts thus:

∠PMN = ∠NMO + ∠PMO, where these two parts (∠NMO, ∠PMO) are equal.

3. Both are the same, common you can say..

4. Because, MO cuts Angle PON in two equal parts.

5. As ∠PON is cut in to equal parts thus:

∠PON = ∠NOM + ∠POM, where these two parts (∠NOM , ∠POM) are equal.

6. From the above statements, we have:

= ∠NMO + ∠PMO (Proved)

= ∠NOM + ∠POM (Proved)

= MO = MO (Proved)

Thus, ∆PMO ≅ ∆NMO, by AAS rule

As simpoool as that!

the answer   is 200

step-by-step explanation:

this is a problem about poisson probabilities.   i don't know if you've

already studied poisson distributions, or if you have a place to look

to read more about the subject.  

here's how you can see a poisson distribution coming.   when there are

a lot of events that may happen at any time (or any place), and when

you're counting how many of them happen at a particular time (or a

particular place), and each event is independent of the others, then

the result is a poisson distribution.   this is roughly true for the

chocolate chips; one chip being in a cookie has only a small effect on

the probability that another chip will be in the cookie.

once you know you have a poisson distribution, you know a lot.   there

is only one parameter to a poisson distribution, so if you know the

mean, you know everything.   the form of the distribution is

  probability of n chips = {[e^(-x)]*(x^n)} / (n! )

18.75 gallons

step-by-step explanation: