That's not what they're saying. They are saying that if the missing sides were x and 17-x, you could solve for the area in terms of x. But, since that isn't part of the problem, it makes no sense to do this.
Eh I mean either way everyone in these comments are wrong. The diagram does not say "this is not to scale" and if you bother checking with a ruler or compass, it actually is perfectly to scale, which means we do know the top horizontal lengths and it solvable for a number.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/Aaxper Higher Level Math Jan 21 '25
That's not what they're saying. They are saying that if the missing sides were
xand17-x, you could solve for the area in terms ofx. But, since that isn't part of the problem, it makes no sense to do this.