Pls me with (must show wokk without ) + lots of

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?

What is the missing reason in step 5? linear pair postulategivendefinition of complementary anglescongruent complements theorem

Complete the table for different values of x in the polynomial expression -7x2 + 32x + 240. then, determine the optimal price that the taco truck should sell its tacos for. assume whole dollar amounts for the tacos.