In the figure, lines I and mare parallel lines cut by transversal p. Andrea said that if m 2 2 = 40° then m 3 must also be equal to 40°. Which justifies Andrea's statement?
A
Alternate interior angles are congruent.
B. Alternate exterior angles are congruent.
C. Corresponding angles are congruent,
D. Consecutive interior angles are supplementary

The statement which justifies Andrea's statement is "Corresponding angles are congruent" ⇒ C

Step-by-step explanation:

If two parallel lines intersected by a line, then there are some pair of angles are formed

In the given figure

∵ Lines l and m are parallel

∵ They are cut by transversal p

∵ ∠2 and ∠3 are in the corresponding position

→ By using the 1st rule above

∵ Corresponding angles are congruent

∴ ∠2 ≅ ∠3

∴ m∠3 = m∠2

∵ m∠2 = 40°

∴ m∠3 = 40°

The statement which justifies Andrea's statement is "Corresponding angles are congruent"

hello, sorry being so rude after all that fighting i found it kind of funny, so as me saying sorry here is an answer!

since the table showed her that   2km = 2000m.

to determine, how many km in 2000m, she would divide by 1000.

= 2000 / 1000 = 2 km.

similarly, for 8000m = 8000 / 1000 = 8 km

cheers to savings

~

your pal papaguy