Given the incomplete proof below, what is the missing reason for the statement in step 4?

ASA Congruence Theorem

Step-by-step explanation:

Already,it has been stated and proved that two angles (<ABC and <CAB) and an included side (AB) in ∆ABC are congruent to corresponding two angles (<ABD and <DAB) and an included side (AB) in ∆ABD.

Therefore, based on the ASA Congruence Theorem, ∆ABC is congruent to ∆ABD.

The missing reason is "ASA Congruence Theorem"

alot

step-by-step explanation:

its a wood chuck that can chuck wood

go on the tube you might find some information there