To analyze Maria's conclusion, we need to understand the properties of rotation and congruence in geometry.
-
When a triangle is rotated 270° counterclockwise, this is equivalent to rotating it 90° clockwise. Therefore, if triangle ABC is indeed rotated 270° counterclockwise, then the resulting triangle A'B'C' will be congruent to triangle ABC (as rotations preserve congruence).
-
Someone states that if triangle ABC was rotated 90° (counterclockwise), then A'B'C' is indeed congruent to triangle ABC, and they mention 90° instead of 270°. Since 270° counterclockwise is equivalent to 90° clockwise, they are still correct in acknowledging that ABC and A'B'C' are congruent, but they have misidentified the type of rotation.
-
The final statement suggests that ABC was rotated -90° (clockwise), but this is also equivalent to the previous interpretations, as -90° clockwise is the same as 270° counterclockwise.
Considering all of this:
Statement #1 is correct regarding the congruence, but misleading on the rotation description.
Statement #2 incorrectly identifies the degree of rotation (it's 270° not 90°, but the congruence holds).
Statement #3 declares a misinterpretation that leads to an incorrect conclusion about the congruence.
Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that Statement #1 is the one that is correct, but not entirely accurate about the rotation degrees.
Therefore, it would be best to say:
Statement #1 is partially correct about the congruence but miscommunicates the rotation specificity. All others state the rotations in a manner that misrepresents congruence.
In conclusion, the statement that supports the congruence (irrespective of how the rotation is termed) is the one affirmed as correct.
Correct conclusion: Statement 1 is correct.