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
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) SSS - three sides equal — All three pairs of corresponding sides are equal in length (5 cm, 7 cm and 9 cm in both triangles), so the triangles are congruent by SSS. SAS needs an angle to be given as well as two sides, but no angle is given here. ASA needs two angles and the side between them, but no angles are given at all. RHS needs a right angle and the hypotenuse, but no angle is stated to be a right angle.
- (c) ABC ≅ XYZ — Method: match each vertex in ABC to its corresponding vertex in XYZ, using the equal sides and angles given, then write the letters in that matching order. Working: AB matches XY, BC matches YZ, and angle B matches angle Y, so A corresponds to X, B corresponds to Y, and C corresponds to Z, giving ABC ≅ XYZ. Options: 'ABC ≅ ZYX' puts Z in A's position, but A corresponds to X, not Z; 'ABC ≅ YXZ' puts Y in A's position, but A corresponds to X; 'ABC ≅ ZXY' puts Z in A's position and X in B's position, neither of which is correct. Answer: ABC ≅ XYZ.
- (a) Yes - SSS, the three side lengths all match — Bracket P's sides (12 cm, 16 cm, 20 cm) can each be matched to one of Bracket Q's sides (16 cm, 20 cm, 12 cm) — the same three lengths, just listed differently — so the brackets are congruent by SSS. SAS is wrong here because no angle is stated for either bracket, only three sides. The order the sides are listed in does not matter for SSS — only whether the SET of three lengths matches, and it does, so 'listed in a different order' is not a reason to say no. Nothing extra is needed: SSS proves congruence from side lengths alone, without any angles, so it can be determined.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.