Segment EG is an angle bisector of angle FGH. Noah wrote a proof to show that triangle HEG is congruent to triangle FEG. Noah's proof is not correct. Which line of Noah's proof is incorrect, and why1. Side EG is congruent to side EG because they're the same segment.

2. Angle EGH is congruent to angle EGF because segment EG is an angle bisector of angle FGH.

3. Angle HEG is congruent to angle FEG because segment EG is an angle bisector of angle FGH.

4. By the Angle-Side-Angle Triangle Congruence Theorem, triangle HEG is congruent to triangle FEG.

Line 2 is incorrect; there is not enough information given to state this.
Line 2 is incorrect; there is not enough information given to state this.

Line 2 is incorrect; even though segment EG is a bisector, angles EGH and FGH are not necessarily congruent.
Line 2 is incorrect; even though segment , EG, is a bisector, angles , EGH, and , FGH , are not necessarily congruent.

Line 3 is incorrect; we don't know anything about the lengths of HG, FG, HE, and EF, so this line is not valid based on the given information.
Line 3 is incorrect; we don't know anything about the lengths of , HG, , , FG, , , HE, , and , EF, , so this line is not valid based on the given information.

Line 4 is incorrect; Angle-Side-Angle is not a valid congruence theorem.
Line 4 is incorrect; Angle-Side-Angle is not a valid congruence theorem.

In the Noah's poof of the construction, segment EG would divide angle FGH into two equal parts, which makes line 2 to be valid. i.e <EGH ≅ <EGF. And it can also be observed that line 4 is a valid theorem in proving the congruent nature of triangles.

But line 3 is not valid because of the condition of the statement. Furthermore, segments FG, EG, HG, HE and FE may not be congruent. Thus, the condition of the statement in line 3 is incorrect.