# Isosceles trapezoid problem

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:46 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
Yes Plato by SAS..

No archie those do not match up!! Angle CBO is NOT congruent to angle DAO

Why not?
I thought you had an isosceles trapezoid.
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:47 PM
mjoshua
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)
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:49 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
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)

120=180-(35+25)

95=120-25
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:50 PM
Plato
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
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)

You are just are not ready to understand this problem.
Maybe a sit down with a live instructor is in order.
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:51 PM
mjoshua
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)
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:52 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
And why is it 120?????? How can you justify the base angles of the trapezoid as 60????

I already showed you but you only seem intent on arguing instead of seeing it.
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:55 PM
mjoshua
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???
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:58 PM
Plato
As we both have now said: You are not prepared to understand this question much less are you able to understand its solution.
• Dec 14th 2010, 03:59 PM
mjoshua
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.
• Dec 14th 2010, 04:37 PM
Plato
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
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.

How can anyone help someone who does not understand the question?
• Dec 14th 2010, 05:05 PM
mjoshua
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...
• Dec 14th 2010, 05:18 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
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...

Then are you aware that an isosceles trapezoid has a vertical axis of symmetry
through the point where the diagonals meet ?
• Dec 14th 2010, 05:25 PM
mjoshua
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?
• Dec 14th 2010, 05:27 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by mjoshua
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?

If you are aware of that, then can you see that whatever is on the left of the axis of symmetry
is a mirror-image of whatever is on the right ?

If you can then you have the answer to all your questions
instead of carrying on the way you are doing.
• Dec 14th 2010, 05:33 PM
mjoshua
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?
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last