goyalsau wrote:

shovan85 wrote:Great man!! Very Insightful.

So, I can see E now Thanks.

Can you please explain Why statement 2 is not considerable.

1. Not sufficient at the case of kite.
2. Alone not sufficient.

Combine both take the kite now:

If u say ABCD is a kite whose diagonal are perpendicular to each (from 1) other (AC to BD) then also we can have AB+CD = BC+DA. In the diagram AB and CD will be facing each other and so BC and DA. We still can have a possibility that AB = AD (say 4) and BC=CD (Say 3). Just make the diagram we will see that AB=BC=CD=DA is not possible every time unless the kite is Rhombus.

shovan85 wrote:

goyalsau wrote:

shovan85 wrote:Great man!! Very Insightful.

So, I can see E now Thanks.

Can you please explain Why statement 2 is not considerable.

1. Not sufficient at the case of kite.
2. Alone not sufficient.

Combine both take the kite now:

If u say ABCD is a kite whose diagonal are perpendicular to each (from 1) other (AC to BD) then also we can have AB+CD = BC+DA. In the diagram AB and CD will be facing each other and so BC and DA. We still can have a possibility that AB = AD (say 4) and BC=CD (Say 3). Just make the diagram we will see that AB=BC=CD=DA is not possible every time unless the kite is Rhombus.

Thanks Buddy I was familiar with kite before,
Your explanation Helped A lot, and this particular is a trap for someone who does not the properties of kite,
LIKE me