It is given that ∠B ≅ ∠C. Assume AB and AC are not congruent. If AB > AC, then m∠C > m∠B by . If AC > AB, then m∠B > m∠C for the same reason. However, using the given statement and the definition of congruency, we know that m∠B = m∠C. Therefore, AB = AC and AB ≅ AC. What is the missing reason in the proof?

converse of the triangle parts relationship theorem
substitution
definition of congruency
converse of the isosceles triangle theorem

answer by yourhope:

hi! : )

a farmer that lived in ancient egypt would most likely be barried in the sand, in the desert!

: )

answer 1 : option "c"

answer 2 : option "d"

answer 3 : option "b"

answer 4 : option "d"

answer 5 : option "b"

answer 6 : option "a"

answer 7 : option "c"

answer 8 : option "d"

answer 9 : option "c"

answer 10 : option "d"

answer 11 : option "c"

answer 12 option "b"

answer 13 option "c"

answer 14 option "c"

answer 15 option "d"

answer 16 option "a"

answer 17 option "b"

answer 18 option "c"

answer 19 option "a"

answer 20 option "a"

answer 21 option "c"

d

i'm sorry mate, but i am not seeing any figures. i am unable to solve this for you.