I thought you had an isosceles trapezoid.
I'm still stuck Plato, I knew that from the beginning! LOL
Look at the angles archie, one is 35 the other cannot be 35! (the other has to be the answer of 95 and I still dont know how they get the answer)
LOL know one is answering my question about the 60 degree base angle part.. How can you justify the base angles of the trapezoid as 60??? Why is the adjacent angle the other angle (if not 35 then 25 and vice versa)
No you have not.. no one has explicitly explained WHY the angles are the measures they are.. I get the 120 part (same side interior angles add up to 180 and 180 - 25 - 35 is 120) ok... so now???
As we both have now said: You are not prepared to understand this question much less are you able to understand its solution.
I would understand if someone explicitly helped me with the justification of the steps like I did for the one I can see above. I can't justify the angle measure of ACD as I said from my second post.
I understand the question just fine, do YOU? What I don't understand is how someone can repeatedly dance around the question I initially asked with no justification, this is math, PROVE it. Experts...
Yes, I am! Look, if I can justify why the angle measure of ACD is what it is then I got it, it's really not that hard! Why can't someone just answer that for me?
That is one explanation yes, however you said that the triangles mentioned above were congruent and they clearly weren't. Additionaly, that would mean that ACD is 25, how can this be??? Base angles of an isosc trapezoid are supposed to be congruent the one base angle BCD would be 60 and if DBC is 95 that would mean ADC is 120 which is not equal to 60. For BCD to equal ADC, ACD needs to be 85 not 25. So why is this happening?