I will give brainiest to whoever does both​

Here is their 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?

The table below shows the height of a ball  x  seconds after being kicked.  what values, rounded to the nearest whole number, complete the quadratic regression equation that models the data? f(x)  =  x2  +  x  +  0based on the regression equation and rounded to the nearest whole number, what is the estimated height after 0.25 seconds?   feet

Question 3(multiple choice worth 1 points) use the arc length formula and the given information to find r. s = 16 cm, θ = 48°; r = ? sixty divided by pi cm thirty divided by pi cm one third cm one hundred twenty divided by pi cm