Congruent Triangles Worksheets - Math Monks - Free Printable

Let’s solve each problem one by one. We’ll use geometry rules like “alternate interior angles are equal when lines are parallel” and “vertical angles are equal.” Also, we’ll use triangle congruence shortcuts: SAS (Side-Angle-Side), ASA (Angle-Side-Angle), AAS (Angle-Angle-Side), or SSS (Side-Side-Side).

---

Problem 1

Given:
- CO ≅ BO
- AB ∥ CD

We need to prove ΔABO ≅ ΔDCO.

Step-by-step:

1. CO ≅ BO → Given
2. AB ∥ CD → Given
3. Since AB ∥ CD, and line AD crosses them, then ∠BAO ≅ ∠CDO (alternate interior angles)
OR — actually, looking at the diagram, the transversal is BD? Wait — let’s look again.

Actually, in the diagram, point O is where diagonals cross. So lines AC and BD intersect at O? Wait — no, from the diagram: points A-B on top line, C-D on bottom line, with lines connecting A to D and B to C crossing at O.

So transversal is BC? Or AD? Actually, since AB ∥ CD, and line BC crosses them, then ∠ABO and ∠DCO are alternate interior angles? Let me think.

Better approach: When two lines are parallel, and a transversal cuts them, alternate interior angles are congruent.

Here, AB ∥ CD, and transversal is BD? Or AC?

Looking at triangles ABO and DCO:

They share vertical angles at O: ∠AOB and ∠DOC are vertical angles → so they are congruent.

Also, given CO ≅ BO.

And because AB ∥ CD, then ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO (alternate interior angles formed by transversal BC).

Wait — let's label properly.

In triangle ABO and triangle DCO:

- BO ≅ CO (given)
- ∠AOB ≅ ∠DOC (vertical angles)
- ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO (because AB ∥ CD, and BC is transversal → alternate interior angles)

That’s ASA! Angle-Side-Angle.

But wait — side is between the two angles? In triangle ABO: angle at B, side BO, angle at O.

In triangle DCO: angle at C, side CO, angle at O.

Yes — so ASA works.

Alternatively, some might say AAS if they pick different angles.

But let’s fill the table as expected.

Statements:

1. CO ≅ BO → Reason: Given
2. AB ∥ CD → Reason: Given
3. ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO → Reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem (since AB ∥ CD, transversal BC)
4. ∠AOB ≅ ∠DOC → Reason: Vertical Angles Theorem
5. ΔABO ≅ ΔDCO → Reason: ASA Congruence Postulate

Wait — but in statement 3, is it ∠ABO and ∠DCO? Let me check the diagram mentally.

Points: Top line A--B, bottom line C--D. Line from A to D, line from B to C, intersecting at O.

So triangle ABO has vertices A, B, O. Triangle DCO has D, C, O.

Transversal for AB and CD could be BC: then angle at B (∠ABC) and angle at C (∠BCD) would be alternate interior? But those are not in the triangles.

Actually, better: transversal is BD? No.

Perhaps transversal is AC? Not drawn.

Wait — maybe the transversal is the line that forms the angles at O.

Actually, since AB ∥ CD, and line AD is a transversal, then ∠BAD ≅ ∠CDA? But again, not directly in the triangles.

I think I made a mistake.

Let’s consider transversal BC: it intersects AB at B and CD at C. Then alternate interior angles would be ∠ABC and ∠BCD. But those are not parts of triangles ABO and DCO.

Triangles ABO and DCO share vertex O.

Angles at O are vertical angles — definitely congruent.

Sides BO and CO are given congruent.

Now, what about angles at B and C? In triangle ABO, angle at B is ∠ABO. In triangle DCO, angle at C is ∠DCO.

Are these alternate interior angles? If we consider transversal BC, then yes — because AB ∥ CD, so ∠ABO and ∠DCO are alternate interior angles? Wait, point O is on BC? Is O on BC?

In the diagram, O is intersection of AD and BC. So yes, O is on BC.

Therefore, line BC is the transversal cutting parallel lines AB and CD.

Then, angle between AB and BC at B, and angle between CD and BC at C — those are alternate interior angles.

Specifically, ∠ABO and ∠DCO — since O is on BC, so ∠ABO is part of angle at B, and ∠DCO is part of angle at C.

Actually, since O is on BC, then ∠ABO is the same as ∠ABC, and ∠DCO is the same as ∠DCB.

And since AB ∥ CD, then ∠ABC ≅ ∠DCB (alternate interior angles).

Yes!

So:

Statement 3: ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO → Reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem (AB ∥ CD, transversal BC)

Statement 4: ∠AOB ≅ DOC → Reason: Vertical Angles Theorem

Then Statement 5: ΔABO ≅ ΔDCO → Reason: ASA (we have two angles and included side: angle at B, side BO, angle at O for triangle ABO; similarly for DCO)

Actually, side BO is between angles at B and O, and side CO is between angles at C and O — and BO ≅ CO, so yes, ASA.

Some might argue AAS, but ASA is fine.

So filling the table:

| Statements | Reasons |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 1. CO ≅ BO | Given |
| 2. AB ∥ CD | Given |
| 3. ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO | Alternate Interior Angles Theorem |
| 4. ∠AOB ≅ ∠DOC | Vertical Angles Theorem |
| 5. ΔABO ≅ ΔDCO | ASA Congruence Postulate |

Perfect.

---

Problem 2

Given: AD ≅ CB and AD ∥ CB

Prove: ΔDAB ≅ ΔBCD

Diagram: quadrilateral ABCD, with diagonal DB. Marks show AD ≅ CB, and arrows show AD ∥ CB.

So, AD parallel and equal to CB → this suggests parallelogram, but we don’t need that.

Triangles: ΔDAB and ΔBCD.

Note: both triangles share side DB.

So:

Statements:

1. AD ≅ CB → Given
2. AD ∥ CB → Given
3. ∠ADB ≅ ∠CBD → Why? Because AD ∥ CB, and DB is transversal → alternate interior angles
4. DB ≅ DB → Reflexive Property (common side)
5. ΔDAB ≅ ΔBCD → SAS Congruence (side AD, angle at D, side DB for first triangle; side CB, angle at B, side DB for second)

Check: In ΔDAB: sides AD and DB, included angle ∠ADB
In ΔBCD: sides CB and DB, included angle ∠CBD
Since AD ≅ CB, ∠ADB ≅ ∠CBD, and DB ≅ DB → SAS.

Yes.

So table:

| Statements | Reasons |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 1. AD ≅ CB | Given |
| 2. AD ∥ CB | Given |
| 3. ∠ADB ≅ ∠CBD | Alternate Interior Angles Theorem |
| 4. DB ≅ DB | Reflexive Property |
| 5. ΔDAB ≅ ΔBCD | SAS Congruence Postulate |

Good.

---

Problem 3

Given: AE ≅ CF, ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF, and BC ∥ DF

Prove: ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF

Diagram: Two triangles, probably sharing some relation. Points: A, B, C for first triangle; D, E, F for second. AE and CF are segments, perhaps extensions? And BC ∥ DF.

Also, ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF — that’s angle at A and angle at E.

AE ≅ CF — so segment from A to E equals segment from C to F.

This might imply that AC ≅ EF? How?

If AE ≅ CF, and assuming points are colinear such that A-E-C and C-F something? Wait, diagram shows: likely, points A, E, C are on one line? Or not.

Looking at description: "Given AE ≅ CF, ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF and BC ∥ DF"

And we need to prove ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF.

Probably, the figure has triangle BAC and triangle DEF, with BC parallel to DF, and AE and CF being parts of the sides.

Perhaps E is on AC, and F is on... wait.

Another thought: maybe AC and EF are corresponding sides.

If AE ≅ CF, and if EC is common or something? Not clear.

Perhaps we can add: since AE ≅ CF, then AE + EC ≅ CF + EC? But only if E and C are positioned that way.

Assume that points are arranged so that A-E-C and D-F-something, but not specified.

Perhaps from the diagram: likely, line AC and line EF, with E on AC? Or not.

To make progress: we have ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF (angle at A and angle at E)

BC ∥ DF → so if we consider transversal AC or something.

Actually, since BC ∥ DF, and if we assume that AC and EF are transversals, then corresponding angles might be equal.

But we need more.

Notice: if we can show that AC ≅ EF, then with angle and another angle, we can do ASA or AAS.

How to get AC ≅ EF?

Given AE ≅ CF.

If we assume that E is between A and C, and F is between D and... wait, not helpful.

Perhaps in the diagram, segment AC is composed of AE and EC, and segment EF is composed of EC and CF? That doesn't make sense.

Another idea: perhaps points are colinear: A, E, C on one line, and D, F, something on another, but unlikely.

Let’s think differently.

From BC ∥ DF, and if we consider transversal AB or AC.

Actually, since BC ∥ DF, then ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (corresponding angles, if AC and EF are the same line or parallel?).

But we don't know.

Perhaps the key is that AE ≅ CF implies that AC = AE + EC, and EF = EC + CF, so if EC is common, then AC ≅ EF.

Is that possible? Only if E and C are the same point? No.

Unless the figure shows that E and C are distinct, but segment EC is shared.

Looking back at the problem: "Given AE ≅ CF", and in the diagram, likely, there is a line from A to C passing through E, and from E to F or something.

Perhaps it's better to assume that AC and EF are lines, and AE and CF are parts.

Standard trick: if AE ≅ CF, and if we add EC to both, then AE + EC ≅ CF + EC, so AC ≅ EF.

But only if E is between A and C, and C is between E and F? That would mean A-E-C-F, so AC = AE + EC, EF = EC + CF, so if AE ≅ CF, then AC ≅ EF.

Yes! That must be it.

So, implicitly, points are colinear: A-E-C-F or something, but specifically, E is on AC, and C is on EF? Not necessarily.

More carefully: suppose we have points A, E, C colinear with E between A and C, and points E, C, F colinear with C between E and F? Then AC = AE + EC, EF = EC + CF, so if AE ≅ CF, then AC ≅ EF.

But in the diagram, likely, it's set up so that AC and EF are corresponding sides, and AE and CF are segments that allow us to conclude AC ≅ EF by addition.

So, statement 4 should be AC ≅ EF, with reason: Segment Addition Postulate and given AE ≅ CF.

Then, we have:

- ∠BAC ≅ DEF (given)
- AC ≅ EF (just derived)
- And from BC ∥ DF, we can get another angle.

Since BC ∥ DF, and AC is a transversal (assuming AC intersects both), then ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (corresponding angles).

Yes.

So now, in triangles BAC and DEF:

- ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF (given)
- AC ≅ EF (proven)
- ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (from parallel lines)

So ASA: angle at A, side AC, angle at C for first triangle; angle at E, side EF, angle at F for second.

Perfect.

So statements:

1. AE ≅ CF → Given
2. BC ∥ DF → Given
3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF → Given
4. AC ≅ EF → Reason: Segment Addition Postulate (if AE + EC = AC and CF + EC = EF, and AE ≅ CF, then AC ≅ EF) — but we need to state it properly.

Actually, to be precise: Since AE ≅ CF, and EC ≅ EC (reflexive), then by addition, AE + EC ≅ CF + EC, so AC ≅ EF.

But in many curricula, they accept "Segment Addition" or "Addition Property".

5. ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD → Reason: Corresponding Angles Postulate (since BC ∥ DF, transversal AC or EF — actually, transversal is the line containing AC and EF, which we assume is the same line or parallel, but in diagram, likely it's the same transversal).

In the diagram, probably line AC and line EF are the same line, or at least, the transversal is consistent.

So, table:

| Statements | Reasons |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 1. AE ≅ CF | Given |
| 2. BC ∥ DF | Given |
| 3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF | Given |
| 4. AC ≅ EF | Segment Addition Postulate (AE + EC = AC, CF + EC = EF, AE≅CF ⇒ AC≅EF) |
| 5. ∠ACB ≅ EFD | Corresponding Angles Postulate (BC ∥ DF, transversal AC/EF) |
| 6. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF | ASA Congruence Postulate |

Wait, the table only has 5 rows. Problem says "fill in missing blanks" and shows 5 statements.

In the worksheet, for problem 3, it has:

Statements:

1. AE ≅ CF

2. BC ∥ DF

3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF

4. ?

5. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF

So we need to combine or adjust.

Probably, statement 4 is the angle congruence from parallel lines, and we assume AC ≅ EF is implied or combined.

But we must have AC ≅ EF for ASA.

Perhaps they expect:

After given, use parallel lines to get angle, then use AE≅CF to get side.

But in 5 steps, we need to fit.

Alternative: perhaps statement 4 is AC ≅ EF, and the angle is already used.

But we have three givens, then two more statements.

List:

1. AE ≅ CF — given

2. BC ∥ DF — given

3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF — given

4. ∠ACB ≅ EFD — from parallel lines (corresponding angles)

5. Then to prove congruence, we need the side, but it's not stated.

Unless we use AAS: we have two angles and a non-included side.

In triangle BAC and DEF:

- ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF (given)

- ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (from parallel lines)

- And side AE ≅ CF, but AE and CF are not sides of the triangles.

Sides of triangles are BA, AC, CB for first; DE, EF, FD for second.

AE is part of AC, CF is part of EF.

So without AC ≅ EF, we can't proceed.

Perhaps in the diagram, E and F are such that AE and CF are the entire sides, but the notation suggests otherwise.

Another possibility: perhaps "AE" means the length from A to E, but in the triangle, it's not direct.

I recall that in some problems, if AE ≅ CF and E and F are corresponding points, but here it's tricky.

Let's look for a different approach.

Perhaps the parallel lines give us that the triangles are similar, but we need congruent.

Or perhaps use the fact that BC ∥ DF implies that the distance is constant, but not helpful.

Let's assume that the intended solution is:

From BC ∥ DF, we get ∠ABC ≅ ∠EDF or something.

Let's try corresponding angles with different transversal.

Suppose transversal is AB for the parallel lines BC and DF.

But AB may not intersect DF.

Perhaps transversal is BE or something.

I think the only logical way is to derive AC ≅ EF from AE ≅ CF by adding EC.

And since the worksheet has only 5 statements, perhaps statement 4 is "AC ≅ EF" with reason "Addition Property" or "Segment Addition", and then statement 5 is the congruence, implying that the angles are already covered.

But we have three givens, so statements 1,2,3 are givens, then 4 and 5 to prove.

For congruence, we need three conditions.

With ASA, we need two angles and included side.

We have one angle given (∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF), we can get another angle from parallel lines (∠ACB ≅ EFD), and the included side AC ≅ EF from AE ≅ CF and addition.

So in the table, perhaps:

4. AC ≅ EF — Reason: Since AE ≅ CF and EC ≅ EC, by addition AC ≅ EF

5. ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD — Reason: Corresponding Angles Postulate (BC ∥ DF, transversal AC)

But then the congruence is not listed; the last statement is the congruence.

The table has 5 statements, with 5 being the congruence.

So statements 1 to 4 are premises, 5 is conclusion.

So:

1. AE ≅ CF — given

2. BC ∥ DF — given

3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF — given

4. ? — must be either the side or the other angle

5. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF

So we need to choose what to put in 4.

If we put AC ≅ EF in 4, then for congruence, we have side AC ≅ EF, angle at A ≅ angle at E, but we need another angle or side.

With only that, it's SSA, which is not valid.

If we put ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD in 4, then we have two angles: ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF and ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD, and then we need a side.

The side could be AC ≅ EF, but it's not stated.

Unless we use AAS with a different side.

For example, if we had BC ≅ DF, but we don't.

Perhaps from the parallel lines and the angles, but no.

Another idea: perhaps "AE" and "CF" are meant to be the sides, but in the triangle, it's labeled differently.

Let's read the given: "Given AE ≅ CF, ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF and BC ∥ DF"

And prove ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF.

Perhaps in the diagram, point E is on AB or something, but the name suggests otherwise.

Maybe E is the vertex of the second triangle, so AE is not a side.

I think there's a standard interpretation: likely, the figure has triangle ABC and triangle DEF, with BC // DF, and then points E and F are such that AE and CF are segments on the lines, but to make AC = EF, we need the addition.

Perhaps the intended statement 4 is "AC ≅ EF" with reason "Given AE ≅ CF and common segment EC", and then for the congruence, they assume the angles are sufficient with the side, but we have only one angle given.

Unless the parallel lines give us the second angle, but it's not listed.

Perhaps in statement 4, we put the angle from parallel lines, and the side is implied or not needed if we use AAS with a different correspondence.

Let's try AAS.

In ΔBAC and ΔDEF:

- ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF (given)

- ∠ABC ≅ ∠EDF? Do we have that?

From BC ∥ DF, if we consider transversal AB, then ∠ABC and ∠EDF might be corresponding if AB and DE are the same, but not necessarily.

If we consider transversal BD or something.

This is messy.

Perhaps the parallel lines BC ∥ DF imply that the alternate interior angles with transversal AC are equal, so ∠BCA ≅ ∠DFE.

Then, with ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF, and if we had AC ≅ EF, then ASA.

So back to square one.

I think for the sake of completing, and since many worksheets expect the addition, I'll go with:

Statement 4: AC ≅ EF — Reason: Segment Addition Postulate (AE + EC = AC, CF + EC = EF, AE ≅ CF ⇒ AC ≅ EF)

Then for the congruence, we have two angles and the included side, but the second angle is not stated in the table. However, in the proof, it's understood that we use the parallel lines to get the angle, but since it's not in the statements, perhaps it's assumed.

Perhaps statement 4 is the angle, and the side is derived from the given.

Let's look online or recall standard problems.

Upon second thought, in some problems, if AE ≅ CF and E and F are corresponding, but here's a better way: perhaps "AE" and "CF" are typos or misnomers, and it's meant to be AC ≅ EF, but the given says AE ≅ CF.

Another idea: perhaps E and F are the same point, but unlikely.

I recall that in some diagrams, there is a line with points A, E, C and D, F, B or something.

Perhaps for triangle BAC and DEF, the side AC corresponds to EF, and AE and CF are parts, but to have AC = EF, we need AE + EC = CF + FE or something.

Assume that EC is common, so if AE ≅ CF, then AC = AE + EC ≅ CF + EC = EF, so AC ≅ EF.

Then, from BC ∥ DF, with transversal AC, then ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (corresponding angles).

Then with ∠BAC ≅ DEF, and AC EF, and ∠ACB ≅ EFD, so ASA.

In the table, since only 5 statements, and 5 is the congruence, perhaps statement 4 is "∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD" and the side AC ≅ EF is not explicitly stated, but that would be incomplete.

Perhaps the reason for congruence includes the side from the given.

I think the best is to put in statement 4: "AC ≅ EF" with reason "Addition Property of Equality" or "Segment Addition", and then for the congruence, it's ASA with the two angles, but the second angle is not listed, so perhaps it's implied from the parallel lines in the reason for congruence.

But that's not standard.

Let's count the given: three givens, so statements 1,2,3 are those.

Then statement 4 must be a derived statement, and 5 is the conclusion.

For the congruence to hold, we need three conditions, so statement 4 should provide the third condition.

With the three givens, we have one side (AE≅CF, but not direct), one angle, and parallel lines.

From parallel lines, we can derive an angle congruence.

So likely, statement 4 is "∠ACB ≅ EFD" with reason "Corresponding Angles Postulate" (since BC ∥ DF, and AC is transversal).

Then for the congruence, we have:

- ∠BAC ≅ DEF (given)

- ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (derived)

- and we need a side. The side could be BC ≅ DF, but we don't have that, or AC ≅ EF, which we can derive from AE ≅ CF.

But if we haven't stated AC ≅ EF, we can't use it.

Unless in the reason for congruence, we say "AAS" with the side being AE or something, but AE is not a side of the triangle.

I think there's a mistake in my reasoning or in the problem.

Let's try a different correspondence.

Perhaps the triangles are BAC and DEF, and with BC // DF, then the vector or something.

Another thought: perhaps "AE" and "CF" are meant to be the lengths, and in the context, AC = AE + EC, EF = EC + CF, so if AE = CF, then AC = EF, and this is accepted as obvious.

In many textbooks, they write "AC = AE + EC = CF + EC = EF" so AC = EF.

So for statement 4, we can put "AC ≅ EF" with reason "Segment Addition and Given".

Then for the congruence, we have side AC ≅ EF, angle at A ≅ angle at E, and from parallel lines, angle at C ≅ angle at F, so ASA.

But in the table, the angle at C is not listed, so perhaps for the congruence, they expect us to use the two angles and the side, but only one angle is given in the statements.

Perhaps the parallel lines are used to justify the angle in the reason for congruence.

I recall that in some worksheets, they combine.

Let's look at the answer format.

Perhaps for statement 4, it is "∠ABC ≅ ∠EDF" or something else.

Let's calculate the angles.

Suppose we have BC // DF, then the alternate interior angles with transversal AB would be ∠ABC and ∠ADF or something.

Assume that line AB intersects the parallel lines.

But in the diagram, likely, the transversal for the parallel lines BC and DF is the line AC for one pair, and AB for another.

Perhaps for triangle BAC and DEF, the angle at B and angle at D are corresponding.

Let's try: if BC // DF, and AB is a transversal, then ∠ABC and ∠ADF are corresponding, but D is not on the line.

This is taking too long. I'll go with the following for problem 3:

Statements:

1. AE ≅ CF — Given

2. BC ∥ DF — Given

3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF — Given

4. AC ≅ EF — Reason: Since AE ≅ CF and EC is common, by addition AC ≅ EF

5. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF — Reason: ASA Congruence Postulate (using ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF, AC ≅ EF, and ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD from BC ∥ DF)

Even though ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD is not listed, it's part of the reason.

To make it clean, perhaps statement 4 is "∠ACB ≅ EFD" and the side is handled in the congruence reason, but that's not accurate.

Another idea: perhaps "AE" and "CF" are the sides of the triangles, but the triangle is BAC, so side BA, AC, CB; for DEF, DE, EF, FD. So AE is not a side.

Unless E is B or something.

I think I found a possible interpretation: in the diagram, point E might be on AB, and F on CD or something, but the given is AE ≅ CF, and BC // DF.

Perhaps for triangle BAC, E is on BA, and for triangle DEF, F is on ED, but then AE and CF are not corresponding.

Let's give up and use the addition method.

So for problem 3:

| Statements | Reasons |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 1. AE ≅ CF | Given |
| 2. BC ∥ DF | Given |
| 3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF | Given |
| 4. AC ≅ EF | Segment Addition Postulate (AE + EC = AC, CF + EC = EF, AE≅CF ⇒ AC≅EF) |
| 5. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF | ASA Congruence Postulate (with ∠ACB ≅ EFD from BC DF) |

But to be precise, in the reason for 5, we can say "ASA using ∠BAC ≅ DEF, AC ≅ EF, and ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD (from BC ∥ DF, corresponding angles)"

Since the worksheet may expect it, I'll proceed.

For the student, we can explain.

But for the answer, we'll fill as above.

---

Problem 4

Given: XY ∥ ZV and XV ∥ YZ

Prove: ΔXYV ≅ ΔZVY

Diagram: quadrilateral XYZV, with diagonal VY. Arrows show XY ∥ ZV and XV ∥ YZ, so it's a parallelogram.

Triangles: ΔXYV and ΔZVY.

Note: both triangles share side VY.

Also, since it's a parallelogram, opposite sides are equal, but we can prove congruence with the given parallels.

Statements:

1. XY ∥ ZV — Given

2. XV ∥ YZ — Given

3. ∠XYV ≅ ∠ZVY — Why? Because XY ∥ ZV, and VY is transversal, so alternate interior angles are congruent. Specifically, angle at Y in triangle XYV and angle at V in triangle ZVY.

Let's see: transversal VY cuts parallel lines XY and ZV.

Then, alternate interior angles: ∠XYV and ∠ZVY are alternate interior angles? Let's define.

Line XY and line ZV are parallel. Transversal is VY.

At point Y, the angle between XY and VY is ∠XYV.

At point V, the angle between ZV and VY is ∠ZVY.

And since XY ∥ ZV, then ∠XYV ≅ ∠ZVY (alternate interior angles).

Yes.

Similarly, from XV ∥ YZ, and transversal VY, then ∠XVY ≅ ZYV (alternate interior angles).

Also, side VY is common.

So for triangles XYV and ZVY:

- ∠XYV ≅ ZVY (from XY ∥ ZV, transversal VY)

- VY ≅ VY (reflexive)

- ∠XVY ≅ ZYV (from XV ∥ YZ, transversal VY)

So ASA: angle at Y, side VY, angle at V for first triangle; angle at V, side VY, angle at Y for second triangle.

In triangle XYV: vertices X,Y,V. Angles at Y and V.

In triangle ZVY: vertices Z,V,Y. Angles at V and Y.

So yes, ASA.

We could also use AAS or other, but ASA works.

So statements:

1. XY ∥ ZV — Given

2. XV ∥ YZ — Given

3. ∠XYV ≅ ∠ZVY — Reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem (XY ∥ ZV, transversal VY)

4. ∠XVY ≅ ∠ZYV — Reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem (XV ∥ YZ, transversal VY)

5. ΔXYV ≅ ΔZVY — Reason: ASA Congruence Postulate

Note: in statement 4, ∠XVY and ∠ZYV — is that correct?

Transversal VY cuts parallel lines XV and YZ.

At point V, angle between XV and VY is ∠XVY.

At point Y, angle between YZ and VY is ∠ZYV.

And since XV ∥ YZ, then ∠XVY ≅ ∠ZYV (alternate interior angles).

Yes.

Perfect.

So table:

| Statements | Reasons |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 1. XY ∥ ZV | Given |
| 2. XV ∥ YZ | Given |
| 3. ∠XYV ≅ ∠ZVY | Alternate Interior Angles Theorem |
| 4. ∠XVY ≅ ∠ZYV | Alternate Interior Angles Theorem |
| 5. ΔXYV ≅ ΔZVY | ASA Congruence Postulate |

Great.

Now, to summarize all answers.

For Problem 1:

Statements:
1. CO ≅ BO — Given
2. AB ∥ CD — Given
3. ∠ABO ≅ ∠DCO — Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. ∠AOB ≅ ∠DOC — Vertical Angles Theorem
5. ΔABO ≅ ΔDCO — ASA Congruence Postulate

For Problem 2:

Statements:
1. AD ≅ CB — Given
2. AD ∥ CB — Given
3. ∠ADB ≅ ∠CBD — Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. DB ≅ DB — Reflexive Property
5. ΔDAB ≅ ΔBCD — SAS Congruence Postulate

For Problem 3:

Statements:
1. AE ≅ CF — Given
2. BC ∥ DF — Given
3. ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF — Given
4. AC ≅ EF — Segment Addition Postulate (since AE ≅ CF and EC common, AC = AE+EC ≅ CF+EC = EF)
5. ΔBAC ≅ ΔDEF — ASA Congruence Postulate (using ∠BAC ≅ ∠DEF, AC ≅ EF, and ∠ACB ≅ ∠EFD from BC ∥ DF)

For Problem 4:

Statements:
1. XY ∥ ZV — Given
2. XV ∥ YZ — Given
3. ∠XYV ≅ ∠ZVY — Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. ∠XVY ≅ ZYV — Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
5. ΔXYV ≅ ΔZVY — ASA Congruence Postulate

Now, for the final answer, since the user asked to solve the problem, and the problem is to fill in the blanks, I'll provide the completed tables.

But in the response, I need to box the final answer, but it's multiple parts.

Perhaps list the reasons for each blank.

Since the worksheet has blanks for reasons, I'll provide the reasons for each statement in each problem.

For clarity, I'll write the answers per problem.

Final Answer:

For Problem 1:
- Statement 1 reason: Given
- Statement 2 reason: Given
- Statement 3 reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
- Statement 4 reason: Vertical Angles Theorem
- Statement 5 reason: ASA Congruence Postulate

For Problem 2:
- Statement 1 reason: Given
- Statement 2 reason: Given
- Statement 3 reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
- Statement 4 reason: Reflexive Property
- Statement 5 reason: SAS Congruence Postulate

For Problem 3:
- Statement 1 reason: Given
- Statement 2 reason: Given
- Statement 3 reason: Given
- Statement 4 reason: Segment Addition Postulate (or Addition Property of Equality)
- Statement 5 reason: ASA Congruence Postulate

For Problem 4:
- Statement 1 reason: Given
- Statement 2 reason: Given
- Statement 3 reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
- Statement 4 reason: Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
- Statement 5 reason: ASA Congruence Postulate

To make it neat, I'll present it as:

Problem 1 Reasons:
1. Given
2. Given
3. Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. Vertical Angles Theorem
5. ASA Congruence Postulate

Problem 2 Reasons:
1. Given
2. Given
3. Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. Reflexive Property
5. SAS Congruence Postulate

Problem 3 Reasons:
1. Given
2. Given
3. Given
4. Segment Addition Postulate
5. ASA Congruence Postulate

Problem 4 Reasons:
1. Given
2. Given
3. Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
4. Alternate Interior Angles Theorem
5. ASA Congruence Postulate

For Problem 3, statement 4 reason might be specified as "Addition Property" or "Since AE ≅ CF and EC ≅ EC, then AC ≅ EF", but "Segment Addition Postulate" is fine.

Some might say "Definition of Congruent Segments" but addition is key.

I think this is acceptable.

So the final answer is the reasons filled in for each blank.