In this situation, we have two right triangles \( \triangle ABC \) and \( \triangle PQR \), where \( \angle B \) and \( \angle Q \) are the right angles. We know the following:
- \( AB \cong QR \)
- \( AC \cong PR \)
Marcus is stating that the triangles are congruent by the HL (Hypotenuse-Leg) Congruence Theorem. This theorem states that if a right triangle has one leg and the hypotenuse congruent to the corresponding leg and hypotenuse of another right triangle, then the triangles are congruent. However, for HL to be applied, we must also have the length of the third side (the other leg) indicated or be able to conclude it logically based on the given information.
Marlee disagrees, noting that the corresponding legs are not marked as congruent, which indicates that without knowing if the third sides (the other legs) are equal, we cannot conclude that the triangles are congruent.
Given that the congruence of the legs is not established in the information provided, Marlee's reasoning is valid. Therefore, Marcus is incorrect in his application of the HL Theorem.
Based on this understanding, the correct response is:
Marlee is correct; the triangles are not congruent because the corresponding legs are not marked as congruent.
10 answers