True/ False question dealing with math and shapes?

Question

Support you answer for each question. Person with most correct answers will get 10 points.

TRUE/FALSE
19. It is possible for diagonals of a quadrilateral to bisect each other without being a parallelogram.
A. true
B. false
20. It is possible for a quadrilateral to have perpendicular diagonals without being a rhombus.
A. true
B. false
21. It is possible for a quadrilateral to have one pair of opposite angles congruent without being a parallelogram.
A. true
B. false
22. A rhombus with congruent diagonals is a square.
A. true
B. false
23. A median of a trapezoid is perpendicular to the bases.
A. true
B. false
24. If the diagonals of a trapezoid are congruent, then the trapezoid is isosceles.
A. true
B. false

Answer 1

next time just have your teacher/ prof post the exam directly.

Answer 2

19. A. A rectangle is a quadrilateral and its diagonals bisect each other.

20. A. It is possible. A square is a quadrilateral and it has perpendicular diagonals.

21. A. It is possible. A rectangle, rhombus and a square are quadrilaterals and they have congruent opposite angles.

22.A. A square has equal diagonals.

23. A.I think is true.

24. A.It is true.

Answer 3

If I understand your questions right:
19 - False.
20 - True.
21 - True.
22 - True.
23 - True.
24 - False (possibly may excist, but not necessary).

Answer 4

i think of Secretsauce and Gribbling lined various the bases. i might basically choose to function one greater factor. I went to grad college the place the PhD application became into run alongside a medical college. There are 2 forms of docs, in my adventure: the mechanics and the scientists. The mechanics have a tendency to make undesirable docs - they study the papers, understand what indications correspond to what ailment, and the thank you to handle them. The scientists, on the different hand, have an in-intensity *understand-how* of how biology works (notice that being "enormously knowledgeable" confers understanding, no longer inevitably understand-how). The scientists have a inherent urge to appreciate greater concerning to the full (and the thank you to heal it), on an identical time as the mechanics basically have a tendency to examine approximately new the thank you to handle ailments. it is not staggering, then, that a mechanic-physician does not could manage evolution... I propose, does your vehicle mechanic would desire to have an in-intensity understand-how of physics? no longer if he needs to easily restoration the priority to hand, rather than study and improve the gadget as an entire. I could additionally factor out that the full declare lost severe credibility at "Darwinists." Darwinists are no longer a team... except they seem to be a sort of fan club, i think. the widespread concept of evolution has better on Darwin's techniques a great deal, and scientists basically know him via fact the only that have been given the ball rolling. If we've been to erase all of Darwin's information from the information, the thought of evolution might nevertheless carry good. Bergman does not help his case while he differentiates between microevolution and macroevolution. they're the comparable factor, in straightforward terms distinctive in scale. Why is it unreasonable that adequate tiny steps ought to hold one on a adventure of many miles? area notice: Jerry Bergman have been given his PhD by Columbia Pacific college, a non-accepted college. His different graduate levels are in Psychology and counseling... fields tangentially with regards to biology at terrific.

Answer 5

19 B
20 A
21 A
22 A
23 don't know what "median" means here
24 A

Answer 6

19. FALSE
20. FALSE
21. FALSE
22. TRUE
23. TRUE
24. TRUE

Answer 7

19 true
20 true
21...............ok i give up i'm out of school right now and i don't feel like thinkin and plus it's late and i can't think clearly.

Answer 8

19. A(RECTANGLE AND SQUARE)

20.A(SQUARE)

21.A(RHOMBUS)

22.A

23.A

24.A

Answer 9

19.a
20.a
21.a
22.a
23.b
24.a