Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

more detail

step-by-step explanation:

the system of inequalities is

step-by-step explanation:

step 1

find the equation of the dashed line

we have the points

(0,0) and (3,1)

the line passes through the origin, so, is a direct variation

find the slope

the equation of the dashed line is

the solution of the inequality a s the shaded area above the dashed line

therefore

the equation of the inequality a is

step 2

find the equation of the solid line

we have the points

(4,0) and (0,4)

find the slope

the equation of the solid line is

the solution of the inequality b s the shaded area below the solid line

therefore

the equation of the inequality b is

step 3

the system of inequalities is

when the daily mileage is greater than 40 miles, unlimited mileage plan will save you money. 40 miles is the break-even point.

step-by-step explanation: