Which statement best explains why the sum of the areas of the two white squares in figure 2 is the same as the area of the white square in figure 1?

Statement 1 best explains why the sum of the areas of the two white squares in fig 2 is the same as the area of the white square in fig 1.

Step-by-step explanation:

Statement 1:

In each figure the total area is equal and the area of 4 triangles is equal, so the remaining white area must also be equal.

Explanation:

Total area of each square = ab*ab

Fig 1 has 4 triangle each with area = ab/2

Total area of non-white part in fig 1 = 4*(ab/2) = 2*ab

Fig 2 has 2 non-white rectangles each with area = a*b

Total area of non-white rectangles in fig 2 = 2*ab

As non-white area of fig 1 = non-white area of fig 2

The remaining white area must also be equal.

no association

step-by-step explanation:

if you have eyes and you can use them efficiently you can see that it just looks like random dots like do a line of best fit and like they're so spread out it's such a weak association you might as well consider it nonexistent

a

step-by-step explanation:

strong negative correlation