FREE Printable Properties Of Parallelograms Worksheets [PDFs] - Free Printable

Let’s solve each part step by step.

---

Part A: Find the value of x in each parallelogram.

In a parallelogram, the diagonals bisect each other. That means they cut each other exactly in half. So, if you’re given one half of a diagonal, you can find the whole thing — or if you’re told two halves are equal, set them equal to solve for x.

---

Problem 1:
Given: OA = x + 23 in; OC = 31 in
Since diagonals bisect each other, OA = OC (because O is the midpoint).
So:
x + 23 = 31
Subtract 23 from both sides:
x = 31 - 23
x = 8

✔ Check: 8 + 23 = 31 → correct.

---

Problem 2:
Given: XZ = 26 ft; OX = 44 + x ft
Wait — this looks odd. In parallelogram YXWZ, diagonals intersect at O. So OX should be half of XZ? But XZ = 26 ft, so OX should be 13 ft. But here it says OX = 44 + x ft — that would mean 44 + x = 13 → x = -31? That doesn’t make sense with units and context.

Wait — let me re-read. The diagram shows diagonal XZ, and point O is intersection. So OX is half of XZ only if O is midpoint — which it is in a parallelogram.

But XZ = 26 ft → so OX = 13 ft.
But problem says: OX = 44 + x ft → so:

44 + x = 13
x = 13 - 44
x = -31

That seems weird, but mathematically correct based on what’s written. Maybe there’s a typo in the problem? But we have to go with what’s given.

Alternatively — maybe “OX = 44 + x” is meant to be “OW = 44 + x”? Or perhaps XZ is not the full diagonal? Let’s look again.

Actually, looking at the label: “XZ = 26 ft ; OX = 44 + x ft”

If O is the intersection point, then OX is half of XZ only if XZ is the full diagonal. But 44 + x = 13 → x = -31.

Perhaps it’s a mistake in the problem, but since we must solve as given, we’ll go with x = -31.

BUT — wait! Maybe “OX = 44 + x” is actually “OW = 44 + x”, and XZ is one diagonal, OW is part of the other? No — the problem says “find x in each parallelogram” and gives those values.

Another possibility: maybe “OX = 44 + x” is miswritten and should be “OX = 4.4 + x” or something? But we can’t assume.

Let me check Problem 4 — similar issue.

Hold on — perhaps in Problem 2, “OX = 44 + x” is meant to be compared to another segment? But no other segment is given except XZ.

Wait — maybe XZ is not the diagonal being bisected? Let’s think differently.

In parallelogram YXWZ, diagonals are YW and XZ, intersecting at O.

So, O is midpoint of both diagonals.

Therefore, OX = OZ, and OY = OW.

Given: XZ = 26 ft → so OX = 13 ft.

Also given: OX = 44 + x ft → so:

44 + x = 13 → x = -31

It’s strange, but mathematically consistent. We’ll keep it.

---

Problem 3:
Given: PR = (7x) yd ; OP = 35 yd
PR is a diagonal, O is intersection point → so OP is half of PR.

So: OP = (1/2) * PR
35 = (1/2) * 7x
Multiply both sides by 2:
70 = 7x
Divide by 7:
x = 10

✔ Check: PR = 7*10 = 70 yd → half is 35 → matches OP.

---

Problem 4:
Given: OM = (x/5) in ; OF = 14 in
In parallelogram HEFG, diagonals HF and EG intersect at O.

OF is half of diagonal HF? Wait — F is a vertex, O is center, so OF is half of diagonal HF only if H-O-F are colinear and O is midpoint.

Assuming standard labeling, yes — so OF = OH, and together they make HF.

But here, OM and OF — M and F are different points.

Looking at diagram: likely, M and F are endpoints of one diagonal? Or perhaps OM and OF are parts of different diagonals?

Wait — in parallelogram HEFG, vertices H,E,F,G. Diagonals are HF and EG, intersecting at O.

So, for diagonal HF: HO = OF
For diagonal EG: EO = OG

But here it says OM and OF — where is M? Probably a typo? Or perhaps M is G? Or E?

Looking back at image description — in problem 4, it's labeled H, E, F, G, with diagonals intersecting at O. Then it says OM and OF.

Possibly M is G? Because sometimes diagrams label points differently.

Assume that "OM" is meant to be "OG" — because O to G would be half of diagonal EG.

But OF is half of diagonal HF.

They are not necessarily equal unless it’s a rectangle or rhombus.

Wait — the problem doesn't say anything about equality between OM and OF. It just gives their expressions.

But how do we relate them? There must be a relationship.

Perhaps in the diagram, M and F are on the same diagonal? Unlikely.

Another thought: maybe "OM" is a typo and should be "OE" or "OG", and it's supposed to be equal to OF? But why?

Wait — let's read carefully: "OM = (x/5) in ; OF = 14 in"

And we need to find x.

Unless there's additional info, we can't solve. But in parallelograms, diagonals bisect each other, but different diagonals aren't necessarily equal.

Unless... perhaps in this case, the diagram shows that OM and OF are segments that are equal? But the problem doesn't state that.

This is confusing. Let me look at the original image description again.

In the user's image, for problem 4, it's parallelogram HEFG, with diagonals intersecting at O. Points: H, E, F, G. Then it says OM and OF.

Perhaps M is the same as G? Or maybe it's a different point.

Another idea: perhaps "M" is a typo and it's supposed to be "O to G" or "O to E".

But let's assume that in the diagram, OM is actually OG, and since diagonals bisect, but still, OG and OF are not related directly.

Unless the parallelogram is a rectangle, but it's not specified.

Wait — perhaps the problem intends that OM and OF are parts of the same diagonal? But that doesn't make sense.

Let's consider that in some diagrams, M might be the midpoint or something, but here O is already the intersection.

I think there might be a labeling error. Perhaps "OM" should be "OE" and it's equal to OF? But why?

Another approach: in many such problems, when they give two segments from O to vertices, and ask for x, it's often that those two segments are equal because they are halves of the same diagonal or something.

But here, OF is given as 14, and OM = x/5.

Perhaps in the diagram, M and F are opposite ends, so OM and OF are not on the same line.

I recall that in some textbooks, for parallelogram HEFG, with diagonals HF and EG intersecting at O, then for diagonal EG, EO = OG, and for HF, HO = OF.

So if "OM" is meant to be "OG", then OG = OE, but not necessarily equal to OF.

Unless the problem implies that the diagonals are equal, but it doesn't say that.

Perhaps "M" is a typo and it's "H" or "E".

Let's look at the expression: OM = x/5, OF = 14.

If we assume that OM and OF are meant to be equal (perhaps in the diagram they are marked equal), then:

x/5 = 14
x = 70

That makes sense numerically, and 70/5 = 14.

Probably that's what is intended — even though not stated, in the diagram, perhaps OM and OF are shown as equal, or it's a mistake.

In many worksheet problems, they might imply that the segments are equal if not specified otherwise, but strictly speaking, in a general parallelogram, they are not.

However, given that in problem 1 and 3, we used the bisection property, here perhaps for diagonal HF, OF is half, but OM is part of the other diagonal.

I think the most reasonable assumption is that "OM" is a typo and should be "OE" or "OG", and it's equal to OF only if it's a rectangle, but let's see the answer.

Perhaps in the diagram, M is G, and for diagonal EG, OG = OE, but still not related to OF.

Another idea: perhaps "OM" is the length from O to M, and M is on HF or something.

I think for the sake of solving, and since x/5 = 14 gives x=70, and it's clean, likely that's intended.

Moreover, in problem 2, we had a negative number, which is suspicious, so perhaps problem 2 also has a typo.

Let me double-check problem 2.

In problem 2: XZ = 26 ft, OX = 44 + x ft.

If OX is half of XZ, then OX = 13, so 44 + x = 13, x= -31.

But perhaps "OX = 44 + x" is meant to be "OW = 44 + x", and XZ is one diagonal, but OW is part of the other, and no relation.

Or perhaps "XZ = 26" is not the diagonal, but a side? But it's labeled as diagonal in the diagram.

Looking back at the user's image description: for problem 2, it's parallelogram YXWZ, with diagonals YW and XZ intersecting at O.

So XZ is a diagonal, length 26 ft, so OX = 13 ft.

Given OX = 44 + x ft, so 44 + x = 13, x = -31.

Similarly, for problem 4, if we assume that OM and OF are meant to be equal, then x/5 = 14, x=70.

Perhaps in problem 4, "OM" is "OG", and in the diagram, it's shown that OG = OF, implying it's a rectangle, but not stated.

To resolve, I'll proceed with the mathematical solution as per given, but note that problem 2 gives negative x, which is unusual.

For problem 4, let's assume that the intention is that OM = OF, so x/5 = 14, x=70.

Otherwise, we can't solve.

Perhaps "M" is "F", but that doesn't make sense.

Another thought: in some notations, M might be the midpoint, but O is already the intersection.

I think for consistency, and since the problem asks to find x, there must be a relation, so likely OM = OF is implied or typo.

So I'll go with x = 70 for problem 4.

But let's confirm with standard properties.

Upon second thought, in parallelogram HEFG, if O is intersection, then for diagonal HF, HO = OF = 14 in (given OF=14, so HO=14, HF=28).

For diagonal EG, EO = OG.

But OM is given — if M is G, then OM = OG, but no value given for EO or anything.

Unless the problem is that OM is OG, and it's equal to OF, but why?

Perhaps in the diagram, the lengths are marked equal, so we assume OM = OF.

I think that's the only way, so x/5 = 14, x=70.

So for now:

Problem 1: x=8

Problem 2: x= -31

Problem 3: x=10

Problem 4: x=70

Now Part B.

Part B: Find the value of x and y in each parallelogram.

Again, diagonals bisect each other, so segments from O to vertices are equal in pairs.

Also, in some cases, they may give expressions for different segments.

---

Problem 1:
Parallelogram LKJI, diagonals intersect at O.

Given:
OL = (8x - 56) in ; OJ = 24 ft
OM = 36 in ; OK = (9y + 20) ft

First, note units: some in inches, some in feet. We need to convert to same unit.

Probably, since OL and OM are in inches, and OJ and OK in feet, but in the same parallelogram, likely all should be same unit, or perhaps it's a mistake.

OL = 8x - 56 in
OJ = 24 ft
OM = 36 in
OK = 9y + 20 ft

In parallelogram LKJI, diagonals are LJ and KI, intersecting at O.

So, for diagonal LJ: LO = OJ
For diagonal KI: KO = OI

But here, OL is same as LO, so OL = OJ? But OL is in inches, OJ in feet.

24 ft = 24 * 12 = 288 inches.

So if OL = OJ, then:

8x - 56 = 288
8x = 288 + 56 = 344
x = 344 / 8 = 43

Then, for the other diagonal, OM and OK.

OM = 36 in, OK = 9y + 20 ft

If OM and OK are parts of the same diagonal? Diagonal KI: K to I, O is midpoint, so KO = OI.

But OM is given — where is M? Probably M is I, so OM = OI.

So if OM = OI, and KO = OI, then KO = OM.

But KO is OK, same thing.

So OK = OM

But OK is in feet, OM in inches.

So convert OM to feet: 36 in = 36/12 = 3 ft

So OK = 3 ft

But OK = 9y + 20 ft

So:

9y + 20 = 3
9y = 3 - 20 = -17
y = -17/9 ≈ -1.888...

Again negative, and fraction.

Perhaps M is not I.

In the diagram, for parallelogram LKJI, vertices L,K,J,I. Diagonals LJ and KI intersect at O.

Then, typically, OL = OJ, and OK = OI.

Given OL = 8x-56 in, OJ = 24 ft.

As above, if OL = OJ, then 8x-56 = 24*12 = 288, x=43.

Then for the other diagonal, OK and OI should be equal.

Given OM = 36 in, and OK = 9y+20 ft.

If M is I, then OM = OI, so OI = 36 in = 3 ft, and OK = OI, so OK = 3 ft.

Thus 9y + 20 = 3, y = -17/9.

But also, the problem asks for MK later, which might be a segment.

It says: "x = ___ ; y = ___ ; MK = ___"

MK is probably the length from M to K, but M is not defined. In the given, it's OM, so M is a point.

Perhaps M is the same as I, so MK is from M(I) to K, which is the diagonal KI.

Since O is midpoint, KI = 2 * OK = 2 * 3 = 6 ft, or 72 in.

But let's see.

Perhaps "OM" is a typo and should be "OI", and it's given as 36 in, and OK = 9y+20 ft, and since OK = OI, then 9y+20 = 3 (after conversion), y= -17/9.

But negative y is odd.

Another possibility: perhaps the units are mixed, but in the expression, we need to be careful.

Maybe "OJ = 24 ft" is a mistake, and it's 24 in, but it says ft.

Or "OL = 8x-56 in" but perhaps it's ft.

Let's calculate with consistent units.

Suppose we keep everything in inches.

OJ = 24 ft = 288 in

OL = 8x - 56 in

Set equal: 8x - 56 = 288, x=43, as before.

OM = 36 in

OK = 9y + 20 ft = 9y + 240 in (since 20*12=240)

If OK = OM, then 9y + 240 = 36, 9y = 36 - 240 = -204, y = -204/9 = -68/3 ≈ -22.666, worse.

If OK = OI, and OM = OI, then same thing.

Perhaps for diagonal KI, KO = OI, and OM is OI, so OK = OM.

But units don't match.

Another idea: perhaps "OM" is not O to M, but something else, but unlikely.

Or perhaps M is a different point.

In the problem, it's "OM = 36 in", and later "MK = ", so M and K are points, so MK is distance between M and K.

If M is I, then MK is IK, the diagonal.

But still.

Perhaps in the diagram, M is the midpoint or something, but O is already there.

I think there might be a labeling issue.

Let's look at the given: "OL = (8x - 56) in ; OJ = 24 ft" — so OL and OJ are on the same diagonal LJ, so they should be equal, so we must convert units.

So OL = OJ => 8x - 56 = 24 * 12 = 288, so 8x = 344, x = 43.

Then "OM = 36 in ; OK = (9y + 20) ft"

Now, if M and K are on the other diagonal, and if OM and OK are parts, but typically, for diagonal KI, KO and OI are equal.

If M is I, then OM = OI, and OK = KO, and since KO = OI, then OK = OM.

So OK = OM.

But OK is in ft, OM in in, so convert OM to ft: 36 in = 3 ft.

So OK = 3 ft.

But OK = 9y + 20 ft, so:

9y + 20 = 3

9y = -17

y = -17/9

Then MK: if M is I, and K is K, then MK is the distance from M to K, which is the length of diagonal KI.

Since O is midpoint, KI = 2 * OK = 2 * 3 = 6 ft.

Or in inches, 72 in, but probably keep as is.

The problem doesn't specify unit for MK, but likely ft or in.

Since OK is in ft, probably MK in ft.

So MK = 6 ft.

But y is negative, which is strange.

Perhaps "OJ = 24 ft" is a typo, and it's 24 in.

Let me try that.

Suppose OJ = 24 in (instead of ft).

Then OL = OJ => 8x - 56 = 24

8x = 80

x = 10

Then OM = 36 in

OK = 9y + 20 ft = 9y + 240 in (if we work in inches)

If OK = OM, then 9y + 240 = 36, 9y = -204, y = -68/3, still bad.

If OK = OI, and OM = OI, same.

Perhaps for the other diagonal, OM and OK are not equal, but in parallelogram, they should be if M and K are corresponding.

Another possibility: perhaps "OM" is "OI", and it's given, and OK is given, and they are equal, but units are mixed, so we need to set them equal after conversion.

But as above.

Perhaps "OK = (9y + 20) ft" but 20 is in inches or something, but unlikely.

Let's look at the expression: "OK = (9y + 20) ft" — probably 20 is feet.

Perhaps in the diagram, the segments are not on the same diagonal.

For example, in parallelogram LKJI, diagonal LJ: L-O-J, so OL = OJ.

Diagonal KI: K-O-I, so OK = OI.

Given OL = 8x-56 in, OJ = 24 ft, so as before.

Then given OM = 36 in — if M is I, then OI = 36 in.

Then OK = OI = 36 in = 3 ft.

But OK = 9y + 20 ft, so 9y + 20 = 3, y = -17/9.

Then MK: if M is I, K is K, then MK is the distance between I and K, which is the diagonal KI = 2 * OK = 2 * 3 = 6 ft.

So perhaps that's it.

For problem 2 in Part B.

Problem 2:
Parallelogram VUTS, diagonals intersect at O.

Given:
TV = 76 yd ; OV = (20 - .90) yd — probably 20 - 0.90 = 19.1 yd? But that seems odd.

"OV = (20 - .90) yd" — likely 20 - 0.9 = 19.1, but why write it that way? Perhaps it's 20 - 90/100, but same.

SU = (54 - y) yd ; OS = 20 yd

First, TV is a diagonal? In parallelogram VUTS, vertices V,U,T,S. Diagonals are VT and US, intersecting at O.

TV is the same as VT, so diagonal VT = 76 yd.

O is midpoint, so OV = OT = half of VT = 38 yd.

But given OV = (20 - 0.90) yd = 19.1 yd.

19.1 ≠ 38, contradiction.

Unless "TV = 76 yd" is not the diagonal, but a side? But in the diagram, it's likely diagonal.

Perhaps "TV" is the whole diagonal, so OV should be half, but 76/2 = 38, but given OV = 20 - 0.9 = 19.1, not 38.

So inconsistency.

Perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is meant to be "OV = 20 - 0.9y" or something, but it's written as ".90", which is 0.9.

Another possibility: ".90" is a typo, and it's "9y" or "0.9y".

Let me read: "OV = (20 - .90) yd" — probably it's "20 - 0.9y" or "20 - 9y", but it's written as ".90", which is constant.

Perhaps it's "20 - 90/100" but same.

Or perhaps ".90" is "9y", and it's miswritten.

In many fonts, y and 0 look similar, but here it's ".90", so likely 0.90.

But then OV = 20 - 0.9 = 19.1 yd, but should be 38 yd if TV=76 is diagonal.

So perhaps TV is not the diagonal.

In parallelogram VUTS, if vertices are V,U,T,S, then sides are VU, UT, TS, SV, diagonals VT and US.

So TV is diagonal VT.

So OV should be half of TV.

So OV = TV / 2 = 76 / 2 = 38 yd.

But given OV = 20 - 0.90 = 19.1 yd, which is not 38.

So error.

Perhaps "TV = 76 yd" is the length from T to V, but O is on it, so TV = TO + OV, and if O is midpoint, TO = OV, so TV = 2 * OV.

So 2 * OV = TV = 76, so OV = 38.

But given OV = 20 - 0.90 = 19.1, so 2*19.1 = 38.2 ≈ 76? 38.2 *2 = 76.4, close to 76, perhaps rounding, but 20 - 0.9 = 19.1, 2*19.1=38.2, not 76.

76 / 2 = 38, so OV should be 38.

So perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is meant to be "OV = 20 + 18" or something, but not.

Another idea: perhaps ".90" is "9y", and it's "20 - 9y".

Let me assume that. In many problems, it's common to have variables.

So suppose OV = (20 - 9y) yd.

Then since OV = TV / 2 = 76 / 2 = 38 yd.

So 20 - 9y = 38

-9y = 18

y = -2

Then SU = (54 - y) yd = 54 - (-2) = 56 yd

OS = 20 yd

SU is diagonal US, so OS should be half of SU, so OS = SU / 2 = 56 / 2 = 28 yd, but given OS = 20 yd, not 28.

Contradiction.

If OS = 20, and SU = 54 - y, and OS = SU / 2, then 20 = (54 - y)/2

40 = 54 - y

y = 54 - 40 = 14

Then OV = 20 - 9y = 20 - 9*14 = 20 - 126 = -106, impossible.

So not.

Perhaps for diagonal US, OS = OU, and SU = SO + OU = 2 * OS, so SU = 2 * 20 = 40 yd.

But given SU = 54 - y, so 54 - y = 40, y = 14.

Then for diagonal VT, TV = 76 yd, so OV = 38 yd.

But given OV = 20 - 0.90 = 19.1, not 38.

So unless "OV = (20 - .90)" is for something else.

Perhaps ".90" is "0.9y", so OV = 20 - 0.9y.

Then set equal to 38: 20 - 0.9y = 38

-0.9y = 18

y = 18 / (-0.9) = -20

Then SU = 54 - y = 54 - (-20) = 74 yd

OS = 20 yd, but should be half of SU = 37 yd, not 20.

Not matching.

Perhaps OS is not half, but in parallelogram, it should be.

Another possibility: "OS = 20 yd" is given, and for diagonal US, OS = OU, so SU = 2 * OS = 40 yd.

Given SU = 54 - y, so 54 - y = 40, y = 14.

Then for diagonal VT, TV = 76 yd, so OV = 38 yd.

Given OV = 20 - 0.90 = 19.1, which is not 38, so perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is a different expression.

Perhaps ".90" is "9y", and it's "20 - 9y", and we have y from above.

From SU = 2 * OS = 2*20 = 40 = 54 - y, so y = 14.

Then OV = 20 - 9*14 = 20 - 126 = -106, impossible.

Perhaps OV is not for the same diagonal.

I think there might be typos in the problem.

For the sake of completing, let's assume that in problem 2 of Part B, "OV = (20 - .90)" is meant to be "OV = 38" or something, but we have to use given.

Perhaps "TV = 76 yd" is the length from T to V, but O is not midpoint? But in parallelogram, it is.

I recall that in some cases, if it's not specified, but it is a parallelogram, so diagonals bisect.

Perhaps for problem 2, "TV = 76 yd" is a side, not diagonal.

Let's check the diagram description.

In the user's image, for problem 2 of Part B, it's parallelogram VUTS, with diagonals intersecting at O, and TV is likely the diagonal.

But to resolve, let's look at the given: "TV = 76 yd ; OV = (20 - .90) yd" — perhaps ".90" is "9y", and it's "20 - 9y", and we can set OV = TV / 2 = 38, so 20 - 9y = 38, y = -2, as before.

Then "SU = (54 - y) yd = 54 - (-2) = 56 yd"

"OS = 20 yd" — but if SU is diagonal, OS should be 28 yd, but given 20, so perhaps OS is not half, or perhaps for the other diagonal.

Then "OT = " is asked, so perhaps OT is part of TV.

Since TV = 76, and O is midpoint, OT = 38 yd.

But given OV = 20 - 9y = 20 - 9*(-2) = 20 + 18 = 38 yd, good.

Then for SU = 56 yd, and OS = 20 yd, but if O is midpoint, OS should be 28 yd, but given 20, so contradiction.

Unless "OS = 20 yd" is a mistake, and it's 28, or something.

Perhaps "OS = 20 yd" is for a different purpose.

Another idea: perhaps "OS = 20 yd" is given, and it's correct, so for diagonal US, OS = 20, so SU = 40 yd.

Then SU = 54 - y = 40, so y = 14.

Then for diagonal VT, TV = 76, so OV = 38.

But given OV = 20 - 0.90 = 19.1, not 38.

So unless "OV = (20 - .90)" is "OV = 38", but it's written as expression.

Perhaps ".90" is "0", so OV = 20 - 0 = 20, still not 38.

I think the only logical way is to assume that "OV = (20 - .90)" is "OV = 20 - 9y" or "20 - 0.9y", and set equal to 38.

Let me try OV = 20 - 0.9y = 38

-0.9y = 18

y = -20

Then SU = 54 - y = 54 - (-20) = 74 yd

OS = 20 yd, but should be 37 yd for half, not match.

If we set OS = SU / 2, then 20 = (54 - y)/2, so 40 = 54 - y, y = 14.

Then OV = 20 - 0.9*14 = 20 - 12.6 = 7.4 yd, but should be 38, not match.

Perhaps for diagonal VT, TV = TO + OV, and if O is not midpoint, but in parallelogram it is.

I think there might be a typo in the problem, and for problem 2 of Part B, "OV = (20 - .90)" is meant to be "OV = 38" or "OV = (38) ", but it's given as expression.

Perhaps ".90" is "9y", and "20 - 9y" , and we have to use the other equation.

Let's use the fact that for diagonal US, OS = 20 yd, and SU = 54 - y yd, and since O is midpoint, SU = 2 * OS = 40 yd, so 54 - y = 40, y = 14.

Then for diagonal VT, TV = 76 yd, so OV = 38 yd.

But given OV = 20 - 9y = 20 - 9*14 = 20 - 126 = -106, which is impossible, so perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is not related, or perhaps it's "OV = 38" and the expression is for something else.

Perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is a distractor, but unlikely.

Another possibility: " .90" is "0.9 times y", so OV = 20 - 0.9y.

Then with y=14, OV = 20 - 12.6 = 7.4, not 38.

Perhaps TV is not the diagonal, but a side.

In parallelogram VUTS, if TV is a side, then it's not related to O directly.

But the problem gives TV and OV, so likely TV is diagonal.

Perhaps "TV = 76 yd" is the length of the diagonal, and "OV = (20 - .90) yd" is given, but 20 - 0.9 = 19.1, and 2*19.1 = 38.2, close to 76? 38.2*2=76.4, approximately 76, so perhaps it's 20 - 0.9 = 19.1, and TV = 2*19.1 = 38.2, but given as 76, so not.

76 / 2 = 38, so OV should be 38.

So perhaps "20 - .90" is "38", but written wrong.

Or "20 + 18" etc.

For the sake of time, I'll assume that in problem 2 of Part B, "OV = (20 - .90)" is meant to be "OV = 38" or we ignore the expression and use TV/2.

But the problem asks to find x and y, but in this problem, no x is given; in Part B problem 2, it's "x = ___ ; y = ___ ; OT = ___" but in the given, there is no x mentioned.

Let's read the user's input for Part B problem 2:

"2)
TV = 76 yd ; OV = (20 - .90) yd
SU = (54 - y) yd ; OS = 20 yd
x = ___ ; y = ___ ; OT = ___"

There is no x in the given! Only y.

So probably "x = " is a mistake, or perhaps x is for something else.

In the given, only y is in the expressions.

So perhaps x is not needed, or perhaps it's a typo.

Perhaps "OV = (20 - .90)" is "OV = (20 - 9x)" or something, but it's written as ".90", not "9x".

In the text, it's " (20 - .90) ", so likely constant.

Perhaps ".90" is "0.9x", so OV = 20 - 0.9x.

Then we can solve.

Assume that.

So for diagonal VT, TV = 76 yd, so OV = 38 yd (since O midpoint).

So 20 - 0.9x = 38

-0.9x = 18

x = 18 / (-0.9) = -20

Then for diagonal US, SU = 54 - y yd, OS = 20 yd, and since O midpoint, SU = 2 * OS = 40 yd, so 54 - y = 40, y = 14.

Then OT = ? Since TV = 76, and O midpoint, OT = 38 yd.

So x = -20, y = 14, OT = 38.

Again negative x, but possible.

Then for MK in problem 1, we had y = -17/9, etc.

Perhaps that's the way.

For problem 1 of Part B, if we assume that "OJ = 24 ft" is 24 in, then x = 10, as earlier.

Let me try that for consistency.

In Part B problem 1:
Assume OJ = 24 in (not ft).

Then OL = OJ => 8x - 56 = 24

8x = 80

x = 10

Then OM = 36 in

OK = 9y + 20 ft = 9y + 240 in (since 20*12=240)

If OK = OM, then 9y + 240 = 36, 9y = -204, y = -68/3, still bad.

If OK = OI, and OM = OI, same.

Perhaps for the other diagonal, OK and OM are not equal, but in parallelogram, for diagonal KI, KO = OI, and if M is I, then OM = OI, so OK = OM.

Same thing.

Perhaps "OM = 36 in" is for a different segment.

Another idea: perhaps "M" is the same as J or something, but unlikely.

Perhaps in the diagram, M is on the diagonal, but O is already there.

I think for the sake of completing the assignment, I'll use the initial calculations with unit conversion, and accept negative values.

So for Part A:

1) x = 8

2) x = -31

3) x = 10

4) x = 70 (assuming OM = OF)

For Part B problem 1:
OL = 8x - 56 in = OJ = 24 ft = 288 in, so 8x - 56 = 288, 8x = 344, x = 43

OM = 36 in = OI (assume M is I)

OK = 9y + 20 ft = OI = 36 in = 3 ft, so 9y + 20 = 3, 9y = -17, y = -17/9

Then MK: if M is I, K is K, then MK = distance from I to K = diagonal KI = 2 * OK = 2 * 3 = 6 ft

So x = 43, y = -17/9, MK = 6 ft

For Part B problem 2:
Assume OV = 20 - 0.9x = 38 (since TV=76, OV=38)

So 20 - 0.9x = 38

-0.9x = 18

x = -20

SU = 54 - y = 2 * OS = 2*20 = 40, so 54 - y = 40, y = 14

OT = 38 yd (since TV=76, O midpoint)

So x = -20, y = 14, OT = 38

Now to box the answers.

But let's write them clearly.

First, Part A:

1) x = 8

2) x = -31

3) x = 10

4) x = 70

Part B:

1) x = 43, y = -17/9, MK = 6 ft

2) x = -20, y = 14, OT = 38 yd

For y in B1, -17/9 is approximately -1.888, but better as fraction.

For MK and OT, units are given, so include.

In the answer, probably just the numbers, but since units are in the problem, perhaps include.

But in the blank, likely just the number.

For example, in A1, "x = ____" and given in in, so x=8, no unit.

Similarly.

So for B1, MK = 6, but unit is ft, but perhaps just 6.

Similarly.

So final answers.

But let's confirm problem A4.

In A4, if we assume OM = OF, then x/5 = 14, x=70.

Otherwise, if not, we can't solve, so likely that's it.

Similarly for others.

So I'll go with that.

Final Answer:

Part A:
1) x = 8
2) x = -31
3) x = 10
4) x = 70

Part B:
1) x = 43, y = -\frac{17}{9}, MK = 6
2) x = -20, y = 14, OT = 38

For MK and OT, since the unit is given in the problem, and the blank is for number, probably just the number.

In B1, MK = 6 ft, but in the blank, likely "6".

Similarly for OT = 38.

For y in B1, -17/9, which is fine.

So boxed.

But in the response, we need to put in Final Answer section.

So let's write it.