Which statement cannot be justified given that trianglePBJ congruent to triangleTIM?
(1 point)
Responses
Modifying above Upper P Upper B with bar congruent to Modifying above Upper T Upper I with bar
Image with alt text: Modifying above Upper P Upper B with bar congruent to Modifying above Upper T Upper I with bar
angle Upper B congruent to angle Upper I
Image with alt text: angle Upper B congruent to angle Upper I
angle Upper B Upper J Upper P congruent to angle Upper I Upper M Upper T
Image with alt text: angle Upper B Upper J Upper P congruent to angle Upper I Upper M Upper T
Modifying Above Upper J Upper P with bar congruent to Modifying Above Upper M Upper I with bar
The statement "Modifying Above Upper J Upper P with bar congruent to Modifying Above Upper M Upper I with bar" cannot be justified given that triangle PBJ congruent to triangle TIM.
The statement "Modifying Above Upper J Upper P with bar congruent to Modifying Above Upper M Upper I with bar" cannot be justified given that trianglePBJ congruent to triangleTIM.
To determine which statement cannot be justified given that triangle PBJ is congruent to triangle TIM, we can analyze each statement and see if it aligns with the concept of triangle congruence.
Statement 1: Modifying above P with a line over B is congruent to modifying above T with a line over I.
This statement is valid and can be justified. It implies that the corresponding sides PB and TI are congruent, which is a property of congruent triangles.
Statement 2: angle B is congruent to angle I.
This statement is also valid and can be justified. It implies that angle B in triangle PBJ is congruent to angle I in triangle TIM. Congruence of corresponding angles is a property of congruent triangles.
Statement 3: angle BJP is congruent to angle ITM.
This statement is valid and can be justified. It suggests that angle BJP in triangle PBJ is congruent to angle ITM in triangle TIM. Congruence of corresponding angles is a property of congruent triangles.
Statement 4: Modifying above J with a line over P is congruent to modifying above M with a line over I.
This statement cannot be justified given that triangle PBJ is congruent to triangle TIM. The justification relies on a concept called the corresponding parts of congruent triangles, where each corresponding side and angle in congruent triangles are congruent to each other. However, there is no corresponding side or angle in triangle PBJ that matches with the one mentioned in statement 4 (Modifying above J with a line over P does not have a corresponding part in triangle TIM).
Therefore, the statement that cannot be justified is: Modifying above J with a line over P is congruent to modifying above M with a line over I.