Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Congruence criteria for triangles worksheet — GCSE Higher
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 Higher
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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) No — third angle is also fixed — Since both braces have angles of 55° and 65°, their third angles must both be 60°, because angles in a triangle sum to 180°. All three angles now match, so the braces have the same shape. Both 8 cm sides lie in the same position relative to those angles — opposite the 55° angle in each brace — so one matching pair of corresponding sides fixes the size as well, exactly as ASA or AAS would. The braces are therefore guaranteed to be congruent and the carpenter is incorrect: 'No — third angle is also fixed' is correct. 'Yes — side must be included' is wrong because the side does not have to lie physically between the two named angles; once the third angle is fixed, a corresponding equal side anywhere is enough. 'No — any two angles enough alone' is wrong because two equal angles with no side length at all would only show the triangles are similar, not congruent. 'Yes — third angle may differ' is wrong because the third angle is fixed at 60° by the angle sum and cannot vary.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.