The correct answer is option c. No, because only two out of three parts of the triangles.
To determine if Narisa has enough information to prove that △ABC ≌ △CDA, we need to consider the congruence criteria available. In this case, the given information includes angle congruences: ∠1 ≌ ∠3 and ∠2 ≌ ∠4.
The correct option is:
**c. No, because only two out of three parts of the triangles**
Narisa lacks the necessary information to apply a congruence criterion like SAS (Side-Angle-Side) or AAS (Angle-Angle-Side). While she has two angle congruences (AA), she does not have information about the congruence of any corresponding sides. For a complete proof using AAS, she would need information about the congruence of a pair of corresponding sides.
The absence of information about the sides prevents the use of SAS, and since AAS requires information about two angles and the non-included side, Narisa cannot use it either. Therefore, the correct answer is that she does not have enough information to prove the congruence of △ABC and △CDA.
The question probable maybe:
Narisa plans to write a proof to show that △ ABC≌ △ CDA. Does she have enough information?
Given: <1 ≌ <3, <2 ≌ <4
Prove: triangle ABC ≌ triangle CDA
a. Yes, she can use AAS because segment AC is congruent
b. Yes, she can use AA because she knows that two angles to itself. are congruent.
c. No, because only two out of three parts of the triangles
d. No, because the congruent parts of the triangles are not have marks to show congruence. corresponding