Here is the 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?

distance covered by pamela in 9 l of fuel = 99km

let us apply unitary method here.

distance covered by pamela in 1 l of fuel =99/9 =11 km

now let us find distance covered by pamela if she has 12 l of fuel.

distance covered in 12 l = distance covered in 1 l of fuel * 12

we know that distance covered by here in 1 l is 11 km.

so distance covered in 12 l of fuel = 11*12 = 132 km.

160

step-by-step explanation:

idk

i hope i

stop cheating

step-by-step explanation:

think about the doctor who treated the major and the speaker in the short story "in another country." put yourself in the shoes of the doctor, and based on what you read in the story, write what you think his thoughts about the major and the speaker would be. use the following vocabulary in your response and change the form of these words as needed: detached resign withered