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.
Answer key: Congruence criteria for triangles worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) RHS, using AM as common side — Triangle ABM and triangle ACM both have a right angle at M, since AM is perpendicular to BC. AB and AC are the hypotenuses of the two triangles and are equal, and AM is a side common to both triangles, giving a right angle, equal hypotenuses and one further equal side, exactly RHS, so 'RHS, using AM as common side' is correct. 'SAS, right angle as included angle' wrongly treats the right angle at M as included between AB and AM, but AB is the hypotenuse, not one of the two sides forming that right angle. 'SSS, using BM = CM as a fact' wrongly assumes BM equals CM as a given fact, when this is only true because of the RHS congruence, not before it, so it cannot be used to prove that congruence. 'ASA, AB as the included side' again wrongly labels a side as if it could sit between two angles when only one angle, the right angle, is actually known.
- (b) AB = DE — RHS needs a right angle, the hypotenuse, and one OTHER side to be equal; the right angles and hypotenuses are already equal, so a matching pair of the remaining sides, AB = DE, completes RHS. Angle A = angle D is an extra ANGLE fact, not the extra SIDE fact that RHS specifically requires. AC being parallel to DF says nothing about either triangle's side lengths, so it cannot complete a congruence condition. Being drawn the same way up is about orientation on the page, not about any measurement, so it proves nothing about congruence.
- (d) RHS — Both triangles have a right angle, their hypotenuses are equal, and one further pair of sides (AB and DE) are equal, exactly the RHS condition, so RHS is correct. SAS needs two sides and the angle between them; here the right angle at B is not between the hypotenuse and AB, so this is not a valid SAS setup, making SAS wrong. SSS needs three pairs of equal sides, but only two sides are given here, so SSS is wrong. ASA needs two angles and the side between them, but only one angle, the right angle, is given, so ASA is wrong.
- (a) Two sides equal, with the angle between them equal — Method: recall what each letter in SAS stands for, and the order they must appear in. Working: SAS stands for Side, Angle, Side — two pairs of equal sides, with the equal angle positioned between them. Options: 'two sides and any one angle' describes SSA, which is not valid, since the angle must specifically be the included one; 'two angles with the side between them' describes ASA, a different condition; 'all three pairs of sides' describes SSS, also different. Answer: two sides equal, with the angle between them equal.
- (d) ASA - two angles and the included side equal — Two angles (A and B) are given, and AB is the side between them, so this is ASA. SAS needs two sides and the angle between them, but only one side is given. AAS also uses two angles and a side, but the side must NOT be between the two angles — here AB is between angle A and angle B, so it is ASA, not AAS. RHS needs a right angle, and neither 40° nor 65° is 90°.
- (b) SAS — Method: check which condition matches two sides and the angle between them, since that is what has been measured for each bed. Working: the 60° angle is marked at the corner where the 5 m and 7 m edges meet, so it is the included angle — this is two Sides and the included Angle, SAS. Options: SSS would need a third side measured, but only two edges are known; ASA would need two angles and the side between them, but only one angle is measured; RHS needs a right angle, and 60° is not a right angle. Answer: SAS.
- (b) No — the angle given is not the included angle — Method: check whether the given angle sits between the two given sides, since SAS requires the included angle. Working: sides AB and BC meet at vertex B, so the angle between them is angle B — but the angle given is angle A, which is not between the two given sides, and the same mismatch happens in triangle DEF. Options: 'two sides and one angle match' restates SAS's ingredients without checking their positions, which is exactly Meera's mistake; 'SSS needs three equal sides' is a true fact about a different condition, but it is not the reason Meera is wrong here; 'SAS allows any equal angle' states a rule that is not how SAS works, since the angle must be the included one. Answer: no, the angle given is not the included angle.
- (c) A↔N, B↔L, C↔M (ABC≅NLM) — Matching equal side lengths: AB (8 cm) equals NL (8 cm), BC (10 cm) equals LM (10 cm), and CA (6 cm) equals MN (6 cm). This gives the correspondence A with N, B with L, and C with M, so triangle ABC is congruent to triangle NLM, making 'A↔N, B↔L, C↔M (ABC≅NLM)' correct. 'A↔L, B↔M, C↔N (ABC≅LMN)' simply matches the vertices in the order they are written without checking the side lengths: AB (8 cm) would need to equal LM (10 cm), which is false. 'A↔M, B↔N, C↔L (ABC≅MNL)' also fails this check, since AB (8 cm) would need to equal MN (6 cm), which is false. 'A↔N, B↔M, C↔L (ABC≅NML)' gets A correct but swaps B and C, so AB (8 cm) would need to equal NM (6 cm), which is also false.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) angle B = angle E — AB and BC meet at vertex B, so the angle INCLUDED between them is angle B; making angle B = angle E completes SAS. Angle A sits between AB and AC, not between AB and BC, so it is not the included angle needed for SAS here. Angle C sits between BC and CA, not between AB and BC, so it is not included either. AC = DF would give a third pair of equal sides, which proves congruence by SSS instead of SAS.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.