Answer:
D
Step-by-step explanation:
Step 1
The diagram does support the claim that JK=LM=3JK=LM=3J, K, equals, L, M, equals, 3.
Step 1 is correct.
Step 2
The diagram does support the claim that JL=LN=5JL=LN=5J, L, equals, L, N, equals, 5.
Step 2 is correct.
Step 3
The diagram does support the claim that m\angle KLJ=m\angle MNL=27\degreem∠KLJ=m∠MNL=27°m, angle, K, L, J, equals, m, angle, M, N, L, equals, 27, degree.
Step 3 is correct.
Hint #33 / 4
Step 4
In this step, Chaim claims that the triangles are congruent using a "side-side-angle" criterion. He did establish the conditions for claiming that the figures has two pairs of congruent corresponding sides and an angle that isn't included between those sides.
From step 1, we know \overline{JK} \cong \overline{LM}
JK
≅
LM
start overline, J, K, end overline, \cong, start overline, L, M, end overline.
From step 2, we know \overline{JL} \cong \overline{LN}
JL
≅
LN
start overline, J, L, end overline, \cong, start overline, L, N, end overline.
From step 3, we know \angle KLJ\cong\angle MNL∠KLJ≅∠MNLangle, K, L, J, \cong, angle, M, N, L.
(Segments and angles are congruent if and only if they have equal measures.)
However, side-side-angle congruence is not a valid reason for claiming that two triangles are congruent, so Chaim's reason is inappropriate.
[Why isn't SSA a valid congruence criterion?]
Hint #44 / 4
Chaim used a criterion that does not guarantee congruence.
