0

So I was tackling the following problem:

enter image description here

And here is my working:

enter image description here

However, I am unsure whether my proof is thorough as I think the shape could still be a rhombus? So I am just wondering whether the proof is satisfactory for part a.

Jamminermit
  • 1,923
  • 1
    A rhombus is a parallelogram. In fact, in your work, "there are no right angles" is unnecessary, as rectangles are also parallelograms. Basically, you only need to prove that opposite sides are parallel. – Andrew Chin Sep 10 '19 at 17:56
  • So, please enter the important parts of your question—in this case pretty much all of it—as text instead of posting pictures of them. Your question should be comprehensible with images disabled. Moreover, images are neither searchable nor accessible to screen readers, nor do they show up in summaries. – amd Sep 10 '19 at 18:33
  • @amd sorry, I will try and do this is future, but I am still new to mathjax, so may still rely on whiteboard images for the near future! However, I admit there was no need for me to take a picture of the question as it could easily be written out. If possible could you provide a link to a webpage that has all of the mathjax operations on it? (I found it once, but have lost it haha). – Jamminermit Sep 10 '19 at 19:42

1 Answers1

1

Both rectangles and rhombuses are parallelograms, just special cases. It's instructive to try and construct a Venn diagram of all the shapes you know about when you're not busy with classwork.

CyclotomicField
  • 11,018
  • 1
  • 12
  • 29
  • Ok thanks, now that you say it I remember being told things like all squares are just a special case of a rectangle (probably a similar story with a circle being a special case of an ellipse). However, by that logic, then a square is just a parallelogram, but to me that seems a bit strange as they look so different. Anyway, thanks! – Jamminermit Sep 10 '19 at 19:45