Willis has noticed that when time has been one of the variables analyzed by a scatterplot he has looked at, it has always been the independent variable. He has hypothesized that time can never be a dependent variable. Does the scatterplot below confirm or invalidate Willis’s hypothesis?

not only in mathematics, scientific proof also are required in the other field of science. also maths proofs are of particular structure, containing steps and logics. so proving is like doing science, it is science. that's why it is important to prove. 

an inaccurate proof leads to errors, or stating results that are not accurate.  which wil mess the probelm up you dont want this

for the free

< < < emily> > >

inverse property is the answer

step-by-step explanation: