Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16

Congruence criteria for triangles worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Fifteen questions on "congruence criteria for triangles" — DfE statement G5. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.

Non-calculator

VersionsA only A + B A + B + Csame questions, different order

AnswersQuestions only With answer key Key only

CalculatorMixed Non-calculator (Paper 1)Calculator (Papers 2 and 3)

New sheet

Answer key: Congruence criteria for triangles worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Maths · GCSE Foundation · G5 · Congruence criteria for triangles · Non-calculator · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(c) RHS — Method: check which basic congruence condition matches the facts given — a right angle, the hypotenuse, and one other side, in both triangles. Working: both triangles have a right angle (at M and Q), the hypotenuse is given for both (LN = PR = 15 cm), and one other side is given for both (LM = PQ = 9 cm) — this is exactly Right angle, Hypotenuse, Side. Options: SAS would need the given angle to sit between the two given sides, but the right angle at M is not between LM and LN, since LN is the hypotenuse, opposite the right angle; SSS would need three sides given in each triangle, but only two sides are known here; ASA would need two angles and the side between them, but only one angle is given. Answer: RHS.
(a) No — the angle is not between the two sides — Method: check whether the given angle sits between the two given sides. Working: the 35° angle is marked away from the corner where the 40 cm and 65 cm edges meet, so it is not the included angle — this is SSA, which is not one of the four basic congruence conditions, so it does not guarantee congruence. Options: 'Yes — SAS' wrongly treats any two sides plus any angle as SAS, without checking the angle's position; 'Yes — SSS' wrongly counts the angle as if it were a third side; 'No — only two sides measured' is not the real reason, since SAS itself only needs two sides, so this reasoning is beside the point. Answer: no, the angle is not between the two sides.
(a) Similar, but AAA alone does not prove congruence — Three equal corresponding angles (AAA) show that the two triangles are similar — the same shape — but says nothing about their size, so it does not prove congruence. They could be congruent, or one could simply be an enlargement of the other; without matching side lengths, congruence is not established, so 'congruent because AAA proves congruence' is wrong. Equal angles do not force equal sides — a triangle can be enlarged to any size while keeping the same angles, so that option is also wrong. Something CAN be said here — that the triangles are similar — so 'no relationship can be determined' is wrong too.
(d) Wrong - the given angle is not the included angle — Sides AB and BC meet at vertex B, so the included angle needed for SAS is angle B, not angle A — the information given is SSA. SSA does not prove congruence: with AB = 10 cm, BC = 7 cm and angle A = 40° there are two different triangles that fit, one with angle C ≈ 74.6° and one with angle C ≈ 105.4°, so Sam's triangles need not be the same shape and size at all. Sam is not correct just because two sides and an angle are equal, since the angle must be the one INCLUDED between those two sides. The condition is not ASA either, because ASA needs two angles, and only one angle is given here. It is also not true that nothing matches — the stated lengths and angle DO match between the two triangles; the problem is which angle was given, not whether the values agree.
(d) SAS — two sides, included angle — Each section has two known sides, 3.6 m and 2.4 m, with the 70° angle between them, matching in both sections; this is exactly the SAS condition, so 'SAS — two sides, included angle' is correct. 'SSS — but only two sides given' is wrong because SSS requires three pairs of equal sides, but only two sides are given for each triangle here. 'ASA — angle between two sides' is wrong because ASA requires two angles with a side between them, but only one angle, 70°, is given, not two. 'Cannot prove — only one angle' is wrong because SAS is specifically designed to prove congruence from exactly two sides and the one angle between them, so no further angle is needed.
(c) SAS - two sides and the included angle equal — Two sides (AB and BC) and the angle between them (angle B) are equal in both triangles, so this is SAS. SSS would need all three sides given, but only two sides are stated. ASA needs two angles and the side between them, but only one angle is given. AAS needs two angles and a side, but again only one angle is given here.
(b) Right angle, equal hypotenuse, one more side — RHS requires a right angle in each triangle, equal hypotenuses, and one further pair of equal sides, so 'right angle, equal hypotenuse, one more side' is correct. 'Right angle, hypotenuse, one more angle' is wrong because it asks for an extra equal angle instead of an extra equal side, which RHS does not check. 'Two sides and the angle between them' describes SAS, not RHS, so it is wrong. 'Right angle and all three sides equal' describes SSS with an extra right-angle condition, asking for more information than RHS actually needs, so it is wrong.
(d) 5 — Method: since the triangles are congruent by SAS, the corresponding sides AB and DE must be equal, because both are the side next to the given right angle that is not BC or EF. Working: AB = DE gives 2x + 3 = 13, so 2x = 10, so x = 5. Options: 10 comes from dropping the coefficient of x and solving x + 3 = 13 instead of 2x + 3 = 13; 4 comes from matching AB to the wrong side, EF, giving 2x + 3 = 11, so 2x = 8, so x = 4; 8 comes from a sign error, solving 2x − 3 = 13 instead of 2x + 3 = 13, giving 2x = 16, so x = 8. Answer: 5.
(d) All angles equal and all sides equal — Congruent triangles are identical in both shape and size, so every corresponding angle is equal and every corresponding side is equal, so 'all angles equal and all sides equal' is correct. 'All angles equal, sides may differ' describes 'similar' triangles, which have equal angles but sides in the same ratio rather than necessarily equal, not congruent ones. 'All sides equal, angles may differ' is not geometrically possible for triangles, since equal sides throughout force the angles to match too. 'Same area, angles and sides may differ' is wrong because equal area alone does not guarantee congruence; two triangles can share an area with completely different shapes.
(a) SSA - not sufficient to prove congruence — The angle given, angle A, is not the angle between sides AB and BC — it is not the included angle — so this data is SSA (side, side, angle), which is not sufficient to prove congruence on its own; two triangles can share this SSA information without being congruent. SAS is wrong because the given angle is not the one included between the two given sides. ASA is wrong because only one angle (A) is given, not two. AAS is wrong for the same reason — only one angle is given, not two.
(b) RHS - right angle, hypotenuse and one side equal — A right angle, the hypotenuse (13 cm) and one other side (5 cm) are equal in both triangles, so this is RHS. SAS would need the equal angle to be the one INCLUDED between the two equal sides, but the right angle at B is not between AB and the hypotenuse AC — it is opposite the hypotenuse instead, so SAS does not apply directly here. SSS needs all three sides, but only two sides are stated. ASA needs two angles, but only one angle (the right angle) is given.
(c) SSA — Method: recall the four basic congruence criteria for triangles and compare them with each option. Working: the four basic conditions are SSS, SAS, ASA and RHS. SSA (two sides and a non-included angle) is not one of them, because knowing two sides and an angle that is not between them does not always fix a unique triangle. Options: SSS, ASA and RHS are each genuine congruence conditions, so none of them is the correct answer to 'which is NOT'. Answer: SSA.
(d) SSS, using shared side QS — PQ equals RQ and PS equals RS are two given pairs of equal sides, and QS is common to both triangles, so QS equals itself and gives a third pair of equal sides. Three pairs of equal sides is exactly the SSS condition, so 'SSS, using shared side QS' is correct. 'SAS, using the angle at Q' is wrong because no angle is given anywhere in this question; angle PQS and angle RQS are not stated to be equal, and assuming they are would be assuming the very thing being proved. 'Only two pairs of sides — not enough' is wrong because it forgets that the shared side QS is itself a third pair of equal sides. 'Cannot prove — no angle given' is wrong because SSS is one of the four basic congruence conditions and specifically requires no angle at all.
(c) They must also be equal — Once two triangles are proved congruent by any condition, including ASA, they are identical in every respect: every pair of corresponding sides and every pair of corresponding angles must be equal, not just the ones originally used to prove the congruence. So the two remaining pairs of corresponding sides must also be equal, making 'they must also be equal' correct. 'They might be equal or not' and 'not enough information to say' both wrongly suggest that congruence only guarantees the specific facts used to prove it, when congruence actually guarantees the triangles are identical overall. 'They must be different' is backwards: the triangles being identical is the entire point of proving congruence, not a reason for a side to differ.
(c) ASA — Method: check which condition matches two angles and the side between them, since that is all the sailmaker has measured. Working: the 10 m side lies between the 50° and 75° angles in both panels, so this is two Angles and the included Side, ASA. Options: SAS would need two sides and the angle between them, but only one side has been measured here; SSS would need three sides, but only one is known; RHS needs a right angle and a hypotenuse, and neither panel has a stated right angle. Answer: ASA.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.