All these people saying its 135 are making big assumptions that I think is incorrect. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. The 80 degrees is calculated based on the other angles. What’s very important is the fact that these triangles appear to have a shared 90 degree corner, but that is not the case based on what we just calculated. This means the image is not to scale and we must not make any visual assumptions. So that means we can’t figure out the angles of the right triangle since we only have information of 1 angle (the other can’t be figured out since we can’t assume its actually aligned at the bottom since the graph is now obviously not to scale).

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

135 is correct. Bottom intersection is 80/100, 180-35-100 = 45 for the top of the second triangle. 180 - 45 = 135

You’re making the assumption that the straight line consisting of the bottom edge of both triangles is made of supplementary angles. This is not defined due to the nature of the image not being to scale.

Unless there are lines that are not straight in the image (which would make the calculation of x literally impossible), the third angle of the triangle in the left has to be 80°, making the angle to its right to be 100°, making the angle above it to be 45°, making the angle above it to be 135°. This is basic trigonometry.

I ask you to consider the following picture:

I tell you that the triangles are not to scale. We can definitively say that h = 80° and k = 90°. Note that h + k != 180°. Despite the strange and inconsistent scaling, this meets all requirements of triangles.

Now let me take away the defined 50° angle:

Once again, the triangles are not to scale. They are visually the same triangles. You might assume that h + k = 180°, yielding 40° for the missing angle. However, if I reveal to you that the missing angle is indeed 50° or 60° or ANY ANGLE such that the sum of angles can still be 180°, you are suddenly wrong.

Perhaps consider nurturing your brain further before making such condescending remarks.

Following your logic, there is no evidence that these are triangles and it is never stated, therefore none of these lines might be straight and the discussion is irrelevant.