Answers
Answer:
Scale factor to transform rectangle A into rectangle B is [tex]\frac{1}{3}[/tex].
Explanation:
If both rectangles are similar, then scale factor for width ([tex]r_{w}[/tex]) and height ([tex]r_{h}[/tex]), no unit, must be the same. That is:
[tex]r_{w} = r_{h}[/tex] (1)
[tex]\frac{w_{A}}{w_{B}} = \frac{h_{A}}{h_{B}}[/tex]
Where:
[tex]w_{A}, w_{B}[/tex] - Widths of rectangles A and B, no unit.
[tex]h_{A}, h_{B}[/tex] - Heights of rectangles A and B, no unit.
Let suppose that width is parallel to x-axis, whereas height is to y-axis. If we know that [tex]w_{A} = 3[/tex], [tex]w_{B} = 1[/tex], [tex]h_{A} = 6[/tex] and [tex]h_{B} = 2[/tex], then we have the following result:
[tex]\frac{3}{1} = \frac{6}{2}[/tex]
[tex]3 = 3[/tex]
Which algraically consistent and hence we conclude that scale factor to transform rectangle A into rectangle B is [tex]\frac{1}{3}[/tex].
Related Questions
can i have same bl 5555
Answers
Answer:
OMG YES
Explanation:
PLS HELP!!! Graph the image above after a translation of 5 units right and 3 units down.
Answers
Answer:
put points at (1,1) (3,1) (1,0) and (3,-2) (x,y pattern)
Explanation:
1. Because the statement “all gray rabbits are rabbits”
is true, it follows by analogy that the statement “all
suspected criminals are criminals” is also true.
The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to
recognize that
Answers
On the other hand, all gray rabbits are actually rabbits, or else they wouldn’t be called gray “rabbits”.
The label associated with the rabbits, “gray” is concrete and proven, whereas the label “suspected criminal” isn’t concrete as it has yet to be proven true or false.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
This argument relies on an analogy. it says that because there is a relationship between gray rabbits and rabbits that the same relationship holds between suspected criminals and actual criminals. The difference here is that "gray rabbits" describes characteristics that exist rather than ones that are merely thought to exist. But being a "suspected criminal" does NOT actually imply that one is a criminal. So the analogy doesn't work, and this is a common error of reasoning that you will see on the LSAT. We're asked to Identify the Flaw, and so ideally we'd like an answer choice to address the issue of an inappropriate analogy.
I need help with this short writing
Answers
Answer:
hel p
Explanation:
PLS HELP!!!! Select all the sequences of transformations that create a new congruent figure.
A rotation, then a dilation.
A translation, then a rotation.
A reflection, then a translation.
A rotation, then a reflection.
A dilation, then a reflection.
A translation, then a dilation.
Answers
Answer:
A rotation, then a reflection.
Explanation:
Rotations and reflections are transformations that do not change the shape of the figures. In this case, whenever these two transformations are involved they form congruent figures. This process occurs first with the rotation and then with the reflection, thus creating a rotational symmetry, keeping the identical figures.